Plano Senior Clark Swing
2018 — Plano, TX/US
Bob Beideck Paradigm
I have high school LD and PF experience, as well as some coaching and judging experience.
Things about my style:
- I need to be able to follow your case (i.e. Roadmaps are important, signposting with spreading)
- Don’t just pick a case for the sake of confusing your opponent, it needs to be pretty much topical
- Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand you
- Viewing your opponent’s case doesn’t substitute for flowing
- Don’t take your cards out of context, if the idea behind the card doesn’t support your case, then it’s probably not a good idea to use it, even if you can make a sentence work for you (while I won’t necessarily pick this out myself, if you opponent points it out, I will know and remember)
- Extending arguments require you to give a reason with evidence/warrants (i.e. "non-unique" by itself isn't good enough)
- Be polite (i.e. if you know that you are winning don't destroy your opponent, offensive language should add value if used)
- I weigh arguments against each other, so keep track of important points that your opponent has presented a valid argument that counters it
- I don't take CX into account (other than to give you pointers for next time) unless you bring it up in your speeches
- I would rather see a few well-covered points than a bunch of poorly covered points
- I'm big picture (key points matter more than defending and defeating every point/contention)
- I like voters, they weigh heavily on my decision, and they should be your major arguments (you should pick your still standing, strong points)
- I’m not a big fan of theoretical debates, I prefer debates with substantiated arguments.
I like a good debate and am generally very nice with speaker points to both sides when I see one.
- Ask questions during questioning.
- At least look like you're paying attention.
- Be prepared to give a speech. (In some states, you only count for numbers if you give a speech and it's beneficial for you. After all, you're in the event for a reason.)
- The longer the breaks are that you take the less time you have to speak. (5 minutes is enough time for the judges to do what they need to do and you can always ask for a "point of personal privilege" to use the restroom or come back late.)
Speech Events (IEs & Extemp):
- The grace period (available in some states) is there for a reason, so that you don't automatically get last place for going over. You really shouldn't be using the majority of it.
- You should know your prepared speech's time and not need time signals. (Non-prepared events, such as Extemp and Impromptu, are exempt.)
- I'd rather see 1 or 2 well covered points than 3 points that lack coverage.
Evan Bewersdorf Paradigm
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
tl;dr: if you think a specific argument is important in the round, tell me why, I'll flow it. I'm cool with theory/performance/K/non-traditional debate.
Whatever argumentation styles/arguments you are comfortable with - I will adapt. Debate is a space for open discussion and expression, I am not a firm believer in restrictive policy/rules. Have fun, be educational (or, if you think debate is a game, tell me why), and help me better my wealth of knowledge.
Framework- V/C debate, ROB, ROJ, are all acceptable. Please weigh well tell me how your arguments fit in the framework and why that framework matters. I feel like most debaters don’t do a great job at arguing frameworks after the first two speeches so even if you read a 5-card dump on your opponent’s framework you still need to extend and say why yours is good.
Policy args- I tend to lean to policy style debates even in LD but only if the topic allows it. If the wording of the resolution doesn’t ask for some sort of policy action don’t try to fit one in.
Topicality/theory- When you read these arguments in front of me give the following: 1. A proper structure Interp, violation, standards, voters 2. A clear abuse story (if one isn’t pointed out it’s hard for me to vote on it even if you when the tech debate) don’t just say it’s bad for education or fairness show me why that matters and how it’s bad for debate 3. I feel like competing interps is a better way to debate theory but sometimes reasonability is a good strategy (I don’t like reasonability as much because it calls for me to create some type of Brightline and requires a bit of intervention) 4. I feel like the 1AR is one of the hardest speeches in debate and will vote on RVIs for theory or topicality if the RVI is properly warranted.
K- I'm pretty much solid with most Kritiks, but if you're going hard, I want you to explain it to me otherwise it'll go over my head. I will adapt to you however, and if you think an argument is important - tell me why and I'll vote on it.
I debated for Lindale High School from 2014-2018. I was a state champion in LD, Congressional Debate, and Informative Extemp (x2).
I competed at the national level in extemp and was heavily competitive in TOC circuit touneys.
Brian Bloss Paradigm
I have been involved with speech and debate for 17 years both as a competitor in high school and college and as a coach and a judge.
My background is that I was a policy debater as well as an extemper and orator in college. I competed in the Dallas area. I also competed in Lincoln-Douglas (single person policy) and Parliamentary debate for Western Kentucky University.
As far as my paradigm goes, my preference is for substance and focus of arguments to be about weighing impacts. Don't make the assumption that I am going to do the work for you just because you throw out jargon. I need warrants because it is about your explanation of the evidence.
The following will help you know how best to get my ballot depending on the event I am judging you.
Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I am fine with kritiks provided you have an alternative. I think if you run T that in order for you to win it on the neg that you need to demonstrate in round abuse. Tell me what ground you have lost. I am not a fan of performance debate. The ballot is not a discursive tool for your movement, its function is to help provide you feedback on your style of argument and presentation skills. It also serves as a tool to show that I have fulfilled my judging obligation.
If you are going to run a K please don't make the alternative just to reject. There needs to be a textual advocacy for your alternative and alternative solvency.
I think you can certainly run plans in LD provided that you do the value criterion work. Please don't make the assumption that jumping up declaring "util good" suddenly means that you have done the work if you face an opponent that runs a more traditional value criterion set up.
I am a firm believer in making sure that you actually provide impacts and explain why your arguments matter. Throwing out claims is not a way to win my ballot. I do not consider new arguments made in final focus. I want you to make sure to explain clearly what is going on not because I don't get it, but because it should be that the best argument wins which requires you to explain it not for me to do extra work on your behalf.
I am fine with talking fast so long as you are clear. I will say clear once and afterward I'll either stop flowing and / or drop your speaker points a bit because you failed to adapt.
Kristi Braley Paradigm
I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it. I like to hear authors' credentials the first time it's presented (per TFA rules of evidence) and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round. Weigh impacts and pull through framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater from a traditional circuit and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.
Tamara Brooks Paradigm
No preferences except for speed, speakers must be clear and concise.
Marty De Paradigm
Assistant Debate coach at Grapevine HS, TX
Coaching since 2010 - primarily LD, Congress, Public Forum
Competed in LD as a high school student
Speed: You can speak at the pace that you prefer, but I will yell clear if you're going too fast.
Evidence: Full citations, with a clear explanation of your evidence. Please signpost.
Flex prep: I don't like it.
Theory: Not my favorite, but I have voted on it and at times it was quite relevant to the round.
Philosophy: If it is really esoteric, make sure you explain the importance of it. Personally, I like hearing Philosophy in LD rounds.
Crystallization: The last speech should be purely crystallization (no line by line). Make sure you're weighing and tell me why you won the round.
Value: I weigh value and criterion clash HEAVILY in the debate round.
Wenshang Fan Paradigm
Brandon Fisher Paradigm
I've got quite a bit of experience in Public Forum, LD, and Policy Styles. I will understand your terminology for the most part, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/general expectations of all of the styles. I've been participating in speech and debate for 13 years, coaching for 6, and this is my second year in Texas. I tend to prefer the debate to go a bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of overall structure throughout speeches and the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, once case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give like 2-3 voters or big issues in FF. You can still address line by line in FF, but collapse and categorize.
I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.
Lastly, I will rarely ever vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaks. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:
1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your goal is to practice the art of knowing and preparing arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-8 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time.
PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.
2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF).
3. Debate is a presentational activity. In my opinion, spreading cards or cases is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read the shorter case so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for LD and Policy only. If you spread though slow down on tags, and always include a short analysis of cards and argumentation.
4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in LD and Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.
5. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have the most experience with traditional styles of debate. I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better.
Connor Fitzgerald Paradigm
I can listen, flow, and understand nearly anything you throw at me, as long as you understand the argument and can clearly convey it. I can handle speed but wouldn't recommend it; the clearer your arguments are, the more persuading you are. I will not tolerate bullying within the round... including, but not limited to xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, racist, sexist, or ableist remarks.
Tanya Galloway Paradigm
Deborah Garoui Paradigm
LD Debate: I am a judge that leans toward the classic style. I don't mind K-debate, but you'd better make it apply to the resolution! I am not a fan Topicality arguments. If you run more than one off, I'm not going to apply the rest. Don't be a whiny debater. Debate the round! Speed is fine as long as you are articulate. Don't be rude to your opponent, and if you are a male debater...DON'T BE SEXIST OR CONDESCENDING to a female opponent. I want to hear framework, value, criterion, impacts, and links. Give me that and I will be happy.
PF Debate: Framework and Impacts! I don't like rudeness in Cross Examination. I like a mix of claims, warrants, and narrative. Tell me a story. I am not looking for solvency. I'm not sure why people think they have to solve in PF. I just want to understand why you support or oppose the status quo, how that fits into the framework provided, and where/how it impacts. Don't make it too difficult.
Speech and Interp: I enjoy being in speech and interp rounds, where I get to see student's personalities take flight! I love stories, and I feel like the journey's students choose to take us on are important ones!
In interp, I look for HONESTY and connection in each performance. Don't force emotion. We see that! It takes us out of the context of the piece! Also, please don't stare directly at me. I can't get lost in your piece if you are including me in the scene. I want to be a fly on the wall. And I'm a big believer in the FOURTH WALL. Also, I'm not a fan of those who exploit special needs characters, or make fun of them. If you use the "R" word in my round, or show disrespect to special needs characters, you will hear about it on my ballot. Please reconsider doing this in any piece you choose. It is exclusive and disturbing...don't resort to such things for the purpose of a trophy. This community encourages you to find growth in your humanity as well as your talents!
In speech, I like it when I learn something I didn't already know. Teach me! I love coming out of rounds and telling people, "I was in this OO/Informative/Extemp round and I just learned that..." And I don't mind controversial subjects either! As long as you aren't excluding anyone, or being offensive to a particular group of people (race, ability, religion, sexual preference...etc), then I'm okay with controversy. And whatever your topic...have conviction!
In both speech AND interp, I like it when students make CHOICES and take CHANCES. I'm a tough judge, but only because I want you to improve and have the best critique you can get to do that! I love the community that speech and debate provides for students. I also know that the experience I get from every single performer is invaluable! So thank you!
Kelsey Gibson Paradigm
Christopher Hammer Paradigm
I judge LD, PFD, Congress. Coaching for 13 years and participated in more of the interp stuff when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago so don't hold it against me.
I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency but don't necessarily need to vote on it if the resolution doesn't call for offense. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary. I frown upon evaluating specific cards as RFD because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time. I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA. In PFD, you should prefer using weighing mechanisms for your actual case instead of frontlining responses to your opponent. Students who use "kick the case and focus on responses" in PFD should probably just switch to LD or CX if they want to debate long-term. For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at 30 and deduct from there.
Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber. At TFA, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading. 6's are very rare for me. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks. Another thing to consider for Congress is your role of politicking. I think Congress should be treated as a competition in which the participants are able to speak on either side of legislation without regard to what other competitors are able to/going to do. That means you can "steal" a speech from someone who was waiting their turn as part of the round, and I won't rank you down if you do a good job.
World Schools: I'm new to it but I tend to treat it sort of like my speaker points for PFD and LD. I start everyone out high and then work my way down. I'm less attentive about POI's because I'm usually listening/writing, so I don't mind if you're trying more than 10 times to request them.
Samuel Holsomback Paradigm
Be civil with your opponents, I'm going to be irritated if you're hostile to each other the entire time.
Lincoln Douglas Paradigms:
I'd prefer for each side to focus on their value and criterion as the two most important things in the round. Argue as to why yours is better, if you list it off and ignore it, and the other extends, you'll be in a bad place.
Be sure to extend. I probably can't remember everything you say, especially if you're going progressive. A more clear and concise case is more likely to win over one I have to look for arguments.
Traditional or Progressive is fine, just make sure your arguments are coherent. If you can't spread, don't spread.
I'm more likely to take evidence at hand than just pure argument. If a person has evidence against what you're saying and you can't back it up, they're going to come out on top.
Public Forum Debate Paradigms:
Public forum debate is designed to where the judge can be lay. This means I'd prefer you not spread in the round.
Under the PFD rules, plans and counter-plans aren't allowed. Don't run them.
I did PFD in high school and made it to state, so I'm likely to understand the majority of arguments and frameworks you run.
Uphold your framework and ATTACK the others. If a team's framework goes untouched and you don't have a framework then they'll win. If you both have frameworks and you both ignore them then I'm just going to ignore the frameworks. Extend as much as you can, use the speeches what they're meant for: Summary for summary of arguments, rebuttal for rebuttal, etc.
I don't care if you stand or sit.
David Huston Paradigm
The paradigm below is pretty old, but many of the things still hold. I judge a lot more PF than LD & policy debate anymore. For those of you looking for a PF paradigm, if you go with a lot of the stuff below, you'll be on the right track. I view PF as old time case debate in policy debate. It's about evidence and demonstrating why your argument is smarter and better than your opponent's. It's all about the final focus for me and how you access the arguments you have been making in the debate.
NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.
THEORY: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.
TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.
KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.
EVIDENCE: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely respectfully decline to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may ask for those same electronic documents at the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.
STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.
Pam Ibarra Paradigm
Aarti Kapoor Paradigm
PF/LD: I will normally judge based off of the round. Okay with speed. Prefer it if you don't run theory arguments.
Interp: I will take piece selection into account. Prefer more versatile pieces that display a wider range of skill and talent.
Speaking Events: I will count evidence and fluency breaks. I will also keep track of how evenly your time is distributed. I would also appreciate some humor - more in Original Oratory, less in extemporaneous speaking events.
kevin Khanna Paradigm
I debated in DFW for 5 years.
I did mostly LD, but I've also done PF, CX, and World Schools.
I was mostly a LARP debater, however I did use plenty of critical lit as well so I understand most critical cases just be aware that I may not understand them as well as I do other types of cases so you may have to do a bit more work but if your willing to do that then feel free to run whatever you want.
Feel free to talk as fast as you want, just make sure you're clear. Feel free to sit while debating as well.
Feel free to run any arg, however I tend to not like frivolously theory. That being said, if you can make a convincing argument for why the abuse took place I'll vote on it. However, if your just using theory in order to win, your probably just a bad debater and I'm not going to vote you up for that. I ALSO ASSUME RVI'S (I'm even putting it in all caps so you have no excuse to not know this.)
Let me know what you want me to vote on so the round is easy for me.
Both sided will either get 29.5 or 30 speaks unless there is something unacceptable said during the round (for example: open or blatant racism, sexism, homophobia towards an opponent)
Please remember that cross examination is not binding
If you have any questions regarding anything on here feel free to ask at the start of the round.
Chris LaVigne Paradigm
Christopher (“Chris”) LaVigne/Judging Philospophy
Background: My background is in policy debate. I debated 4 years in high school (1988-1992) and 4 years in college at Wayne State (1993-1997). In college, I debated at the highest levels of NDT policy debate, but that was also a while ago, before law school and before a professional career. I have rejoined the ranks of the judging pool after a long absence because my daughter started doing PF debate. 2017 was my first year judging PF. I was surprised how easy it was to pick up again. Most of this paradigm is geared towards PF since that is usually what I am judging these days. I will cover policy rounds when the tabroom needs help, but most of my experience will be on the PF side so you might need to explain more if you have me in a policy debate. If I am judging something else you are probably in trouble because I don’t know what I am doing.
Speed: Not generally a problem; clarity is always the concern. I have not seen a single PF debate that I thought was “fast” by what I generally consider to be fast.
Paradigm: Generally a tabula rosa philosophy. The debate belongs to the debaters. I will endeavor not to intervene in any way in the round. I am open to almost any argument that is supported by evidence or sound reason. The team advancing an argument always has the burden of proof. Making an argument and supporting the argument are two different things. I am fine weighing and considering analytical arguments, but I am not likely to vote on substantive arguments that are unsupported with evidence (i.e., “its just obvious that if Trump does this, then he will react by doing something else that is bad”). Such an argument is a substantive position that requires support. It is different than arguing that the internal link evidence is bad for some reason. Those arguments don’t require support as they are identifying gaps in the other side’s proof. I actually think the burden of proof is an important part of argumentation. Once a team carries its burden, its up to the other team to address the argument. At that point I am not going to intervene.
Footnoting: I am NOT a fan of the practice of footnoting in debates, by which I mean the practice of citing an author or an article and generally describing what the article says as opposed to reading a specific piece of evidence from that article. Too often, when I ask to see a piece of evidence, I get an entire article handed to me because the source was footnoted and specific cards were not read. My primary problem with the practice is that it requires me to do too much work. I need to read the article and find the point being advanced, consider the context of the article, what caveats are in the card that were not read, what impact do those have on other arguments. I just don’t think it is very fair to the other team, especially since they do not have a meaningful opportunity to review the “evidence” in the debate when the only thing available is an entire article. I much prefer “cards” where specific text is read in the debate, although I have no problem with highlighting cards to read only the parts you are advancing.
Does the second rebuttal need to answer the arguments advanced by the first rebuttal: It depends. I was asked this question before every PF debate at Plano, so it must be something everyone is thinking about. In policy, this is never really an issue because the “block” is really required to cover all the arguments and arguments not in the block do not get flowed through. The structure of PF is obviously different because there is no block. If the second rebuttal is limited to only rebutting the other side’s case, then responses to the first rebuttal do not come until the second summary, which means new arguments and applications in final focus. I think that makes for a messy debate. I prefer when the second rebuttal covers the critical arguments in the debate, both on the pro and the con. My answer of “it depends” is really case dependent because arguments something relate to one another. Let me just say that if there is a large gulf on the flow where you have not extended arguments or advanced a contention then I am not likely to give it much weight later in the debate. Drops are an important part of the process. Opposing teams should be able to rely on those drops in deciding how to allocate time. If you think an argument is going to be important to the outcome of the debate, I encourage that argument to be advanced in second rebuttal, summary, and final focus.
Preferences: It’s your debate, so argue what you want to argue. I try not to let my biases interfere, but inherent bias is certantly present (see comment re footnoting). I prefer arguments with clear link chains, I prefer clash heavy debate, I prefer line-by-line refutation or a general summary of the argument that addresses all the key arguments, I tend to consider flat out drops as admissions (subject only to burden of proof requirements), impacts are always important, but impact fixation is not a panacea (uniqueness, timeframe, link stability, relationship with other advocacy are all important). In policy debate, process disads (politics, political capital, polarization) all make sense, but less so in PF debate where there is no plan and no clear obligation as to “how” any particular advocacy should happen. I will vote on process arguments, but the link needs to be explained and I am probably inclined to listen more to theory arguments that are detriment to the link (if there is no plan, is there still fiat, if there is no plan do we assume action now, later, in the abstract, etc.). I will reward debaters who identify interrelationships between arguments and who can use one part of the flow to answer another part. I really cannot stress this enough. Understanding interrelationships between arguments is very impressive. You should probably be able to explain at the top of final focus or 2NR/2AR why you win the debate and be able to explain it quickly. If you are not extending link chains and impacts in the middle of the debate, don’t bother at the end of the debate. Gulfs on the flow with no ink do not serve your interest.
Don’t be a jerk. Talking loud does not mean talking better. Being confident and assertive is fine.
Questions: Just ask.
Jill Lamping Paradigm
Sunhee Lee Paradigm
Angela Lewallen Paradigm
Yong Li Paradigm
I have limited technical experience with Public Forum Debate. Thus, you should debate accordingly.
1. Go slow, or at the very least, keep your speed at an acceptable pace. Otherwise, I may not catch everything you say or I may not understand it.
2. Don't use debate-y jargon. If you think I won't understand it, give it in lay terms.
3. Prove to me why your argument is true and why it matters. If I only get one or the other, it will be hard to me to evaluate. Make clear comparisons if you make directly competing statements so I have an easy way to sign my ballot.
4. Give me very clear warranting and reasoning behind any claims made. It shouldn't be confusing for a lay judge like me to follow.
5. Having a clear narrative throughout every speech during the round is very important to me. Don't make it confusing and try to go off blippy turns on their case if it doesn't contribute to a narrative. Also, don't change your strategy from summary to final focus because more likely than not I won't evaluate it. Narrative will be especially important in summary/final focus for me.
6. Be organized and let me know what argument you're talking about as you move along, especially in the last two speeches.
7. Be courteous in crossfire and don't let it turn into a yelling match. That's counterproductive to debate.
8. I don't care if second rebuttal responds or doesn't respond to attacks made in first rebuttal. However, I do wish to see relevant responses extended in the first summary, especially if they grant you offense or are heavily contentious in the debate.
9. I am pretty lenient on speaks; I will start out at 30 and deduct from there only if I see anything particularly heinous or outrageous. This includes: being unethical, rude, and having especially poor organization/argumentation. Just be polite and don't let me be confused, or you won't like the outcome.
10. I default to a utilitarian framework if no competing framework is brought up. But if you do bring up one, warrant it very clearly.
11. I don't evaluate theory or anything considered progressive. Just letting you know.
Samuel Loh Paradigm
Sam Loh / Last Updated: Summer 2020
EMAIL CHAIN - (email@example.com)
*For virtual tournaments I require that you start an email chain
o August 2016 - June 2018: Plano West Debate
o August 2018 - June 2019: Hebron High School Assistant Coach (PF)
o June 2019 - June 2020: Colleyville Heritage Assistant Coach (PF)
o August 2020 - Present: I do not currently coach for any teams or schools but I judge for the Marist School on occasion
o Rollover Conflicts from 2019 season: Coppell BC, PESH NK, Westlake LY
PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS (Currently WIP: Check back later):
If you plan on reading progressive arguments, you should read this regardless or not if you've had me before the 2020-2021 season. I've changed a lot of my views and stances
Strike me if:
o You paraphrase with no cut cards
o Extend by author name (As in only the author name and no content)
o You use spreading as a means of exclusion
o 30's theory (You get double 26's)
Topic/Resolution Specific Comments (Currently M4A) :
o Bill spec isn't a voting issue. Ask for specification in cross
o I'm pretty bad at the framing debate. You'll probably have to do more work for me proving why I should prefer your framing over the opponents framing compared to some other judges
o Wait times and doctor shortages are mitigation at best
-I try to be as tech as possible on substance. If an argument is dropped, it becomes 100% true in the context of the round. Exceptions for abusive scenarios (reference above)
-Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first
-On a purely tech perspective, I would agree that winning a link chain with no responsive terminal or mitigatory defense grants 100% probability of the impact scenario you advocate for. I am willing to evaluate said args since tech>truth demands it but I might make facial expressions because I don't think it's a very educational strategy.
-If it doesn't have a warrant, it's not an argument. Analytical warrant > unwarranted card
-The first time you read an argument you need to read a warrant. If you introduce an argument without a warrant, we're going to have a problem
-If I'm being honest, I hardly ever vote on turns because most teams don't do the necessary legwork for me. Extending one piece of dropped evidence and saying vote here won't cut it.
-Depending on the round, weighing and collapsing may not be essential to winning my ballot. However, if you choose to not weigh and/or go for everything, your speaks will suffer.
-Backhalf extensions of defense should include extensions of the implication(s) as to how said argument interacts with the opponent offense. If all you do is extend a one line blip claim, I tend to waive it off as non-responsive.
-I try to resolve defense where it is obviously mitigation in nature . THAT being said, you should aim to point out defense that is mitigation and explain why. Different people have differing opinions on what might be mitigation; you should resolve anything that could affect the ballot.
-I only flow debate proper. In other words, I don't pay much attention to cross. If something happens say it in speech
-Second rebuttal needs to cover turns.
-Summary and Final mirror/parallel.
-All backhalf extensions need warrants; If you are trying to generate offense you also need an impact extension
-All case level responses in rebuttal. No new defense or turns on the opponent case in summary
-Summary extends the full arg (UQ, Link, Internal Link, Impact). No excuses to not develop arguments with three minutes. Final can just be warrant impact
-All defense you go for in final needs to be in summary. It better stay the same between both speeches. If your mitigation pops up as terminal defense in final it goes out the window for me.
-Generally speaking, no new evidence in second summary onward. You should be collapsing as the round progresses, not introducing new arguments. This is also to encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.
-No new weighing in second final unless no other weighing has been done in the round.
-If you're kicking something you A) must do it by explicitly conceding defense the opponents have read and B) must do it in the speech right after whatever defense you're conceding was read
-In real-time, person to person debate, I can handle PF speed okay. Please do not spread paraphrased evidence because it's hot garbage to flow and nobody should have to deal with it. Understand that it is a virtual tournament and connection issues may hinder usual abilities to flow fast. Proceed with caution. I'll clear if I need it.
-Speaks will be given based on argumentation and strategy. Deductions for offensive behavior and misconduct.
-Severe misconduct will tank your speaks, goes as low as loss zero points depending on severity.
-Don't expect a 30's. I wouldn't even necessarily expect 29's unless you debate well. If I were to give a ballpark estimate I'd say my season average is a high 27.
Speaker Point Bonuses
-Disclosure holistically is a good practice but the way it is being conducted right now is suboptimal. I understand that some teams feel like it puts them at a disadvantage. Thus, I will give each speaker a .5 speaker point bump if you disclose on the NDCA wiki for prioritizing educational norms over wins and losses.
Rose Ma Paradigm
Tom McCaffrey Paradigm
In Public Forum and Extemporaneous Speaking: I prioritize reasonable frameworks and clear analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I'm interested in the big picture, and more in the significance and impacts of your arguments than the quantity. I can't vote for your points and impacts if I can't understand them. I award speaker points on a scale from 25-30, which may reflect both positive and negative behavior, and I may include partial points when allowed (e.g. 26.5, 28.75).
In Oratory, Informative Speaking and Impromptu: I value originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of well-written ideas of personal importance. Sources should be cited and importance explained when not obvious.
In Congressional Debate: I value natural delivery of points and impacts, and reasonable positions. I look for clash to lead to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning to lead to clarity, understanding, or insight. I expect knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure in the chamber.
Grant McDermed Paradigm
Eric Mears Paradigm
Clarissa Moreno Paradigm
I have been coaching and judging debate for over a decade.
For PF: I really want the competitors to run the round and do what they do. I like direct clash and clear weighing. I'm not a huge fan of numbers/statistics for their own sake but prefer them to be weighed against their opponents. I appreciate well researched cases with a clear understanding of the topic and its implications. Economic stuff is tough to do so make sure you understand what you're actually arguing on a topic that is econ heavy.
I believe I vote fairly based off of the information presented in round; I try to come in as neutral as possible. I appreciate direction on the flow and organization while speaking. It really does help make sure that I get as much as possible and can judge the best.
Dan Moss Paradigm
Nothing special. I judge PF/LD regularly. Keep arguments germane to the topic. Watch speed.
Fred Quintero Paradigm
Jake RICHTER Paradigm
I'll judge mainly based on what the debaters tell me (obviously) I have no particular preference to the way that arguments are presented. I don't mind speed and I don't mind talking slowly, I've dealt with both so neither will be a problem.
Even though I don't have a particular preference to the style. I tend to give higher speaker points for those that are clear. I have also noticed that if you can read faster and clear I tend to give those debaters higher speaker points. I'm just stating a general trend of mine. However, if you speak slow and clear I'm not gonna take any points away from you.
Theory has a purpose for calling out abuse in the round. I know how theory works and both debaters should tell me how its gonna break down in the round when compared with on case arguments.
Topicality- I'm down with topicality. I think that there are way more violations of topicality violations that could be called out. I also in general believe that this may be beneficial for some clarity on the topic area.
RVIs are probably good in that they serve a purpose against frivolous theory arguments. But I won't automatically give you one unless you give me a reason (a counter interpretation would be a good reason to have an RVI) If you tell me RVIs are good and there is no response to it then I'll vote on an RVI, same applies if I get told RVIs are bad, but I won't vote on it then obviously
I think framework is useful for debaters to use, but if you don't give me an explicit framework then I'll either default util. But if you tell me another impact is way more important than others without a typical Criterion/Standard form, then that will be ok.
Overall framework is important for making it clear what is more important in a round, but there are other ways to establish what is more important or what is offense/defense. As long as I know what to care about and why then I'm a happy judge- or I'll default util and I'll still be a happy judge
Yeah I'm down read them
Yeah I'm down read them
Yeah, I'm down read them
Stock LD cases -
Yeah, I'm down read them (They may not be as strategic at times but thats your choice)
Yeah I'm down read them- critical literature belongs in LD I encourage it- unless you're bad at K lit or haven't read it
I'm down with with anything. Be sure to debate what you're good at, because its the only way debate will be productive or fun. (just don't be a bad person)
1) What your argument is
2) the arguments impacts
3) Why they are more important than your opponents
Tyree Ransom Paradigm
I am an extremely traditional judge. I don’t tolerate spreading at all. Speed should be comparable to that of a conversation. Please properly cite sources, this includes verbalizing your source as well as a date. I don’t just accept a persons name, they need proper qualifications for me to even consider the evidence, this practice will result in deductions. Please speak with purpose, a monotonous speaker will be graded accordingly and likely lose the round. Please practice kindness at all times. Keep your on time (prep included) as well as your opponents. No sharing cases, or traditionally CX specific strategies such as a plan. Provide data (numerical), that’s a very big one for me. Otherwise, have fun, and know that I’ll penalize you for making errors that I tell you about or that you’ve read through my online paradigm. Best of luck!
Chetan Reddy Paradigm
I graduated from Plano West in 2017.
GENERAL: Tech over truth, but there's a line. Warrant your arguments well. I won't default, ever.
Speed: Go for it, but be clear. There's a difference between quality technical debate and card dumping.
Speaks: Usually pretty high. Strategy and quality argumentation matter more to me than persuasive speaking. Higher if you're funny.
Extensions: Second rebuttal does not need to respond to defense from first rebuttal, but must respond to turns. First summary does not need to extend defense that isn’t frontlined in the first rebuttal. Defense is sticky. Extensions need to have a clear citation, and short crystallization of the warrant AND impact before I can vote on it. I'll give you marginal offense with a poorly extended impact, but no offense from a poorly extended warrant.
Warrants: The first time you warrant an argument, I will take that as your warrant. This doesn't mean that I will vote for an argument with poor warrant extension, but if the first time you provide/explain the warrant is not in the first speech you read the argument, I will not consider the argument.
Progressive Debate: Do it well.
If all else fails, I’ll answer specific questions before round.
Edgar Segura Paradigm
Richard Spall Paradigm
Speak loudly and clearly please
Srikanth Tamma Paradigm
Art Tay Paradigm
Plano West '18 | SMU '22
I debated PF for four years. I did okay. I consider myself a fairly technical judge.
TL;DR: If you want my ballot, give me a clear link story from the resolution all the way to the RFD. I'm lazy so write my RFD for me. I won't be offended if you say "your RFD should be". Impact contextualization is really important for me. Tell me why I should care about what you've just said.
Absent explicit framing I will default to a cost benefit analysis.
If there is no offense I fell comfortable voting for at the end of the round I will presume the first speaking team. This is because I believe that in PF the second speaking team has an inherent advantage because of the way that speeches are structured.
The second rebuttal must frontline turns made in the first. If the first speaking team duh goofs and doesn't extend the turn, I guess you lucked out. The other way out of this hole is cross-applying something you did extend, or weighing.
The second rebuttal should frontline terminal defense. If a piece of terminal defense is unresponded to out of the second rebuttal and the first summary extends it, I will have a high threshold to grant the second summary new answers. Conceding defense will also increase my threshold for risk of offense claims in later speeches.
Unextended turns in the summary can be extended in the final focus as terminal defense.
I don't need complete parallelism, but I won't vote on something that isn't in both the summary and final focus.
Unresponded defensive sticks, although I would advise the second summary to extend defense against arguments extended in the first summary.
I probably won't listen to cross, so if something important happens bring it up in speech.
Extensions must include a warrant and an impact.
I like big picture and narrative stuff because I'm too lazy to go through and evaluate the line by line unless your arguments spark my interest.
I won't vote you down if I think you were unstrategic, but I might lower your speaks.
Collapsing and weighing is a must. The sooner the better.
If you go for too much I will be sad.
I will give high speaker points for good implication, spin, and evidence comparison.
I didn't do CX or LD, but I understand how Plans, CP, DA's, and K's work.
I don't mind voting for these kinds of arguments, but I won't vote on novelty.
I will evaluate them as normal PF arguments, and they should be restructured in such a fashion.
If I think you are just reading down a backfile I won't vote on it (don't be lazy, do your own prep).
If you label DA's as turns I'll be sad, then you'll be sad when you see your speaks.
I love a good theory debate. I think that there are some pretty bad norms in PF and I think theory might help fix them.
Defaults: Theory comes before case (this includes k's), reasonability, no RVI's.
Condo - If you drop an advocacy a turn is still a turn. I will vote on Condo arguments about reading de-link to the case to get out of turns.
Paraphrasing - I think this is a great one, especially because it's PF specific.
Disclosure - ehhh, I'd vote on it if it's debated well.
NIB's - NIB's bad theory is something I am inclined to buy. I think in PF it is truly abuse, especially in the second rebuttal.
I view T very similar to the way I view theory. Don't run a non-topic case if you don't believe in it.
I don't like waiting, so if you take too long to find evidence I'll dock speaks.
If you don't read dates I'll be sad ðŸ˜ž.
I'll call for evidence when:
1) I feel that it is being misrepresented.
2) I am told to call for it or it is heavily contested.
3) Competing evidence on important offense and I am not presented with a way to prefer one piece of evidence over the other.
4) I'm interested ðŸ˜
I don’t auto drop debaters on evidence abuse. Small faults, such as minor late speech powertagging, that preserve the integrity of the card can result in no to minor consequences. More severe abuses can lead to me just dropping the argument.
Paraphrasing is ok AS LONG AS you're not misrepresenting evidence
I'm generally nice with speaks 30-28.
I prefer faster debates as long as you signpost well and speak clearly. Slow down on tags and authors.
If I miss something that's on you buddy.
*For Plano West Tournament*
Speaks will be given on the Jerry Scale.
I never did LD, but since you might have me as you're judge here is so information about me.
I have read parts of Wilderson, and some of the Cap stuff, but I have a very basic knowledge of how K debate works. Anything overly technical or based on LD norms will have to be explained to me.
People have told me that PF is like the case debate in policy, so I think I should be fine dealing with Policy Affs, DA's, and CP. I understand how stock issues work, but again anything super technical or based on LD norms will have to be explained.
Defaults: Theory comes before case (this includes k's), reasonability, no RVI's.
You will probably have to do a lot of analysis on the theory debate for me to vote on it. I don't really have an idea of what is abusive in LD since I'm unfamiliar with the speech times, and unaware of norms.
I have a better understanding of T debate in LD than theory. T arguments that seem compelling to me are good a case list, and TVA solves.
I am not trained to follow spreading, but I will try my best. I will say clear if you're going to fast. If you are going to spread please email the speech doc to firstname.lastname@example.org. If you're clear on analytics and tags I'm okay if you spread the card so long as you email me the evidence.
Sibby Thomas Paradigm
Robert Thorsell Paradigm
Ria Varma Paradigm
Najeswana Vummadising Paradigm
Neal White Paradigm
I'm a full-time teacher and debate coach in the North Texas circuit. I have experience coaching and competing in OO, Info, EXT, PF, LD, and Congress. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 12 years.
I'm open to hearing policy-type arguments, such as CPs, Plans, kritiks, etc., but also believe strongly that PF cases and arguments should be presented in a style that is understandable to an "average" listener. Practically, this means that any "progressive" arguments needs to be read slowly (not spread) and should refrain from using debate-specific terminology. If the in-round abuse really is egregious, then you should be able to talk about it without resorting to terms like "standards" and "prep-skew."
Speaking quickly is okay but please do spread. Teams that do the best in front of me tend to spend lots of time in summary and final focus picking a few quality arguments they want to go for and explaining why those arguments outweigh other issues in the round. Avoid excessive line-by-line in the summary or, god forbid, the FF.
The second speaking team can defend their case in rebuttal but by no means needs to. Offensive arguments and/or voters should be present in both the summary and the final focus in order for me to consider them. If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).
The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes-ish. You'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down. You'll also probably find that unless you don't really spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.
Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes-ish! (Seeing a trend? The more ToC-oriented among you might consider me a flay judge). Here is a list of things that confuse/annoy me and that I won't vote for if the person arguing against it makes even a little bit of sense:
-Theory unless the abuse is actually insane
-Non-topical stuff (performance affs, non-topical Ks, etc.)
I think the modern convention of emailing your entire case to your opponent before you read it is unfortunate. Debate is an oral communication activity, right? Not an essay-writing contest? For this reason, I have no interest in being included in your email chain, and will reward debaters that don't engage in this practice with higher speaks.
I do not disclose speaker points.
I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers. This obviously does not apply to tournaments that task me with merely selecting the best PO in a given session and not ranking them against everyone else in the room.
A few other particulars:
-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read the item you're discussing (unless it was literally read to them before debate started).
-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person in your speech is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.
-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.
-I care about how good your best speech was much more than how many speeches you gave.
-I am rarely impressed with three (or, God forbid, four) main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.
Ann Wilburn Paradigm
Meg Wilson Paradigm
Carlyn Yang Paradigm
I debated for plano west and I coached for seven lakes.
For all intents and purposes, I am a lay judge.
Questions can go to email@example.com
Jason Zhang Paradigm
My paradigm is semi-long. If you don't want to read the entire thing, just read this one
Some things that are very important to me (tl;dr):
1. Quality > quantity (card dump bad unless actually interactive)
2. All arguments must be sufficiently warranted and must be interactive
3. All parts of any offense must be extended to access impacts (uniquess, link, internal link, etc//frontlining =/= implicit warrant extension)
4. Weighing is so important. However, I hate noncomparative weighing (we win on magnitude because 50 mil ppl die). If you do this type of weighing, you might as well just not weigh.
5. Pull up your evidence quickly if you don't want speaks to suffer.
6. Defense = sticky
Tech over truth, but treat me like I'm a lay judge. ***I don't like teams that just card dump on their opponents hoping to win the round on sheer quantity of arguments alone.***(emphasized after Plano West semis 2019)
^this is the most brainless form of debate. You're not a "good debater" if you just spread a blockfile without even thinking about what your arguments mean.
If you collapse on a good argument and warrant it well, I'm much more compelled to vote for you over a team that just spoke quickly.
I prefer line by line rebuttals at the very least. If you choose to go with an unconventional order, then please signpost! If I can't follow you, I'll be very sad.
Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defense, but definitely offense - this means turns. I think it's extremely abusive to not respond to a turn that was placed on you in first rebuttal until second summary. If you choose not to respond to turns in your rebuttal, it doesn't mean it's an instant downvote, but your chances of winning the round are slim :((. Defense in first summary sticks unless the other team unstuck it in second rebuttal.
Some kind of framing at some point in the round is definitely preferred because it'll help me decide what to evaluate better. If no explicit framework is agreed upon, I'll default to a cost-benefit analysis. Make sure you're linking whatever offense you go for back into your framework. I don't care if you forget to explicitly extend your framework, but if you don't explicitly link your offense back into your framework, then I'm not doing that work for you.
If no one has a question please just sit down and cut crossfire short. If you end it early, I'll give everyone .5 higher speaks. If something important comes up in crossfire, bring it up in a speech if you want it to have weight.
edit: ur not cool if ur team takes up the entire 3 minutes in crossfire talking. that's just abusive and foolish.
Please weigh your arguments in any way you choose. I'll try not to intervene but I'll be forced to if no one weighs and there's offense on both sides. You also have to weigh your weighing, i.e, tell me why your weighing mechanisms are better than your opponents.
I don't mind calling for evidence after the round if a team tells me to, or if I think you're lying about your evidence. If you can't produce a piece of evidence, then I'll drop the evidence from the round. You argument can still win if you warrant it well without the evidence though.
edit: Please have your evidence ready when your opponents call for it. It's absolutely absurd that anyone has to spend almost 15 cumulative minutes in a round pulling up evidence because "the wifi is spotty". If you aren't cutting your evidence, at least have the decency to download it before tournament. If you spend more than ~5 minutes trying to pull up one piece of evidence, your speaks will suffer considerably.
I prefer a big picture summary and voter final focus. If you choose to go line by line, you better collapse I won't vote on anything if it's not in both of these speeches. Parallelism is good! Also, offense isn't *implicitly* flowed over, so it's not enough to just frontline and then restate your impacts. Make sure you're extending internal warrants as well as frontlining if you want full access to impacts.
I can flow pretty well, but don't spread. If you speak at sanic levels I might miss the argument. If I'm just staring at you and not flowing, it probably means you're speaking at sanic levels.
Generally 28-30 unless you say something blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
I'll evaluate them the same as any other normal argument, but if you go too far into the technicalities, you might lose me.
If you have any questions before the round, feel free to ask me! If you have any questions after the round, feel free to find me! Have fun!