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: email@example.com
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 will rarely ever vote for a lazy debater. 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 4-8 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence. Flashing is prep time.
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 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, speed reading cards is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links and warrants. Also, I literally hate spreading. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things. I hope you have a shorter case to read.
4. I will almost never vote for theory. If you signed up for LD debate, you agreed to the rules of LD debate. I don't consider making up your own rules as strategy.
5. While I understand and accept progressive LD and Policy, you'll have a better ballot if you run traditional because I understand it and have done it a lot more. I come from Colorado where traditional is all you ever see. That being said, I strongly believe you should stick to what you're good at. I'd much rather see a good Progressive debate than a slightly ok traditional debate. Stick to your strengths.
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.
I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency impacts. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary for the most part. I frown upon outweighing cards 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. 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. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks.
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. Quite frankly, on this year's policy topic about education, many of the things being argued shouldn't make it too hard. I'm OK with you arguing what you want to argue; find the link.
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.
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
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 at 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 debates. I will cover policy rounds when the tabroom needs help, but most of 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 in trouble.
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 that arguing that the internal link evidence to profit is bad for some reason. 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 entire articles. 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; does the pro have to advocate acceding to UNCLOS immediately or can it wait until after the mid-terms, etc.). I will reward debaters who identify interrelationships between arguments and who can use part of the flow to answer another part. 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.
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 / Updated for start of '19 season
All email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated for Plano West: 2016-2018
Assistant PF Coach Hebron: August 2018 - June 2019 (Temporary Judging Conflict)
Colleyville Heritage: June 2019 - Present (Permanent Judging Conflict)
I am putting this up here so you don't miss it when reading the whole paradigm. Make sure you read paradigms carefully so there are no "surprises" at the end of the round. Changes have also been bolded in the main paradigm.
With the 3 minute summary change:
-Extensions in summary must include the full argument now (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact) and yes you still need warrants. If you do not extend the full argument, do not expect me to give you offense
-There is no more "sticky defense". Defense must be extended in first summary now or it is dropped
-If you do not do weighing in summary your speaks will tank. I mean it. They literally gave you an entire extra minute.
-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in first summary (adopted from the MSJ KW paradigm). This is to encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.
-That same rule goes for "going for everything in summary". If you are one of those people who thinks more summary time = more case offense to go for, you will not be happy with speaks.
-My threshold for dropping speaks on finding cards has gone down. I am tired of waiting for people to pull up evidence. I will give you 1:30 to find evidence before I start dropping speaks. For every portion of 30s you go over, it's -0.5. I drop the evidence at 3 minutes. If you disclose full text, a doc with proper cut cards, or hyperlink to original ev, you are protected from this.
o Shortcut (LD/CXers I implore that you also read my LD section for your own sake)
LARP - 1
Theory/T - 2-3 depending on complexity (please no meta meta theory stuff)
K and Philosophy - 3
Tricks - 4 (I don't even know what the definition of this is or what it looks like)
*PF: New offense in second rebuttal is fine but then theory responses become very compelling voting issues
Paradigm is kind of long but truth be told I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:
1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention unless you make a morally reprehensible claim
2) The 2R has to cover turns or I consider them dropped.
3) Defense isn't sticky with a 3 minute summary.
4) CX non binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in speech to try and get out of a concession
5) Don't like "risk of offense" or phrases along the lines of "our ev is good at saying ____"
6) Anything that is not contested in the speech after it is read (except case substance) becomes functionally conceded
7) Need parallelism in summary/ff, offensive extensions must be in both speeches
8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument
9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round
10) no new args/weighing in second ff
12) PF is a debate event, speaks are given on how well you debate not how well you speak
Whole paradigm below:
Personal Preferences not related to argumentation
-Preflowing: Preferably before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes i'm docking .5 speaks for every extra minute you take.
-Coin Flip: I'll be asking for sides and speaking order before the round starts so I don't really care. Flip outside if you want
-Sitting/Standing/etc.: In perfect honesty, I don't care. If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. It's probably most appropriate if you stand during speeches but if it's a late round and you're tired from running around the tournament all day I don't mind if you sit.
-Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD: General thought- post round discussion is good for the activity.
Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. All I ask is that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.
o Postround me if you want to. I don't dock speaks unless you make morally reprehensible statements. I don't care if you're not directly affiliated with the competitors in the room and are just watching - if you disagree feel free to speak out.
o I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more more beneficial than harmful to the debate space
-Spectators: For prelims, the choice is up to the competitors in the room. If you're bringing other members of your team make sure that they're not being disruptive or creating an environment that could negatively influence how the other team performs. If I feel that spectators aren't being respectful of the competitors in the round, I'm asking all spectators to leave.
I generally consider myself tabula rasa and I’ll evaluate any argument you give me on an offense/defense paradigm as long as it’s properly warranted and impacted. However, given that, don’t run something that’s homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.
-Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.
-I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. The only things I dislike are massive card dumps. However, please be logical as to what needs to be carded. Don't tell me that x has gone down without providing a stat.
-At least for me, well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk
-Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Any of this has to be done in the speech following. Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.
-I won't intervene on abuse unless it's condo. If your opponents are being abusive please call them out. However on the flip side the more abusive you are the lower my threshold for how much of an "they're abusive" arg needs to be made for me to consider dropping whatever is being considered abusive. General guidelines: NIBs and other strategy orientated tactics like specific framing will require a shell, super abusive args like conditional cp's and floating pics just require you to point out they're abusive.
-Just for clarification this does not mean that you can just say "they're abusive" when they run theory - you have to engage in the shell debate but there's a higher likelihood I just end up washing more friv theory/t shells and evaluating case as long as you make responses. Additionally, if it's blatantly obvious you're running up against novices, attempting to run anything progressive will tank your speaks.
-Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not be a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.
-If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo. However, I would be willing to listen to arguments in round on going about default otherwise and I think I would be strongly compelled to buy a warranted default first argument
-General Idea: If you don't do a good job responding to terminal defense and just say vote for us on risk, don't expect to win my ballot. Having minimum offense v. having no offense are two completely different things. This is a really big issue with me because I think going solely for "risk" is lazy debate that doesn't require you to win a 100% strength of link into your impact. I'll still evaluate risk but make sure you're not using it to clear untouched terminal defense.
My position on "risk of offense": I think it's reasonable but only to a certain extent. I don't think the aff can expect to win rounds just by saying "risk of offense" without actually responding to anything terminal. This would break the game because if the aff can always win via default risk, neg can't win rounds. I am inclined to give risk of offense that is accessing some kind of weak strength of link into their offense and using risk to emphasize the importance of the possibility of the link triggering the impact. It would be even better if you do the analysis on why risk of that link occurring is so important.
- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.
-Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. Yes, I'm calling those claims because they aren't arguments. Debate isn't I make a claim, you make a claim, and we argue with only claims without thinking about the reasoning those claims are set on. Using these alone will not clear defense for you on my flow and excessive attempts will lose you speaks.
-Meta weighing is important and if such a thing exists, I would be willing to hear arguments about a second layer of meta weighing. If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing
-Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.
-I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.
-If for some reason you feel that it is necessary to go for preemptive frontlines in the 1R I'm fine with it
-If you want to use half or so of your time on the second constructive and the rest of the time responding to opponent case, go for it.
-If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your interp or framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my fwork for evaluation. If one side drops their framework, I will default to whichever is left in the round, this includes second constructive if first speaking team presents a framework. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Anytime after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.
-I usually default util absent framing but it may change depending on what I think is the most meaningful interp of the res. Ofc if you present and warrant your own fwork this doesn't really matter
~Philosophy Type Stuff:
-I really don't think any of this will matter since a lot of the depth here is K stuff (reference K's below) but for those who like to use these args as framing
My order of comfort in evaluating goes:
1) Consequentialism - I'm fine with it
2) Deontology - I have some understanding of this, you should be fine as long as you don't go too deep or draw really obscure lines between ideas
3) Ontology - I have a somewhat/very surface level understanding and how it functions in the round. You probably will have to do a bit of explaining of these if you go for them but I should have a very general idea of what you're saying.
4) It's more high theory but I've read a bit of Baudrillard and Nietzsche. Do I understand it well? No. I am willing to evaluate it? Sure.
5) Not listed - I'll try my best to understand but chances are I'm going to be completely lost and will have no clue how to evaluate. Would advise you to stay away for the sake of your own W/L record.
-Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate but it is still possible to get my ballot if you don't collapse at the cost of speaks.
-I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing in second final unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. If you think it helps start in rebuttal if you really want. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final
-Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.
-No new terminalization of impacts in second final
-Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. Like please spend at least a second on it to avoid confusion. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.
-THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact)
-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new ev in first summary
-First summary must extend defense (I.e. it is no longer sticky). Otherwise it's dropped
-My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then I need you to do some minimal warrant impact extension for me to give you offense
-Shadow extension of turns from rebuttal to ff will be weighed as defense but will not be a voting issue. Turns in this context means a real turn that has both the offensive and defensive implications.
-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....
-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization. Even if the opponents extend the impact, you will need to re-implicate why the turn/s means I vote for you
*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument
-Note that running any of these against novices will tank your speaks
-Plans/CP's: Would generally prefer if you don't run these but I'll still evaluate them (unless operating under NSDA rules). I dislike conditional cp's in particular - I'll still evaluate them but keep in mind I will have a super low threshold on dropping the arg if you're called out for being abusive. .
-K's: Generally speaking I'll vote off them. Note that I'm not experienced in the K debate and doing anything super far in the realms of LD/CX is probably going to lose me. This is especially true since I haven't read much K lit (Have read some Wilderson, some Baudrillard) so if things aren't explained you probably aren't going to get the result you want. You've been warned.
-Theory: In short I default to reasonability, no rvi.
Winning only defense on a shell doesn't constitute rvi
Winning turns on the shell without a CI constitutes a vote on the opponent's interp in the round
Special Note on disclosure theory since it's become somewhat controversial: I know most think theory should only be used in regards to in round abuse and I agree that I don't see the in round abuse of not disclosing on the wiki either. However, evidence ethics have gotten so bad i'm fine evaluating it as norm setting behavior. If you don't want to deal with it my advice is to just disclose.
-T: Generally follow the same reasoning as theory (posted above). However, note that my threshold for T is higher than it is for theory. If you try to run some crazy policy type extra-t stuff I'm just going to be lost. Reading multiple t shells is ok but make sure you can name advocacies that grant ground. I really don't care if you are winning condo good on the flow, I'm not buying condo good in pf with 2 minute speech times.
T Defaults: Competing Interps, No RVI, Drop the Debater, T before Theory
-For roadmaps I'm fine with "x off" as long as you're signposting and tagging each off at the top
-If you plan on reading at a pace much faster than traditional pf please email me speech docs. If not you run the risk of me missing something so that's on you. Please slow down on plan texts, alts, interps, and standard tags. Thanks :)
Spreading and the likes of it:
-If you think your opponents are spreading you out of the round, feel free to slow/clear while they're speaking. I think that in order to have the most functional and fair debate, both sides should have the right to understand what the other team is saying and what their arguments are. Try to keep it reasonable from both ends. If you yell clear when it is very obvious to me that there isn't a need to, you're losing .5 speaks.
-Don't know why people do wpm counts, I don't get the point. I'll clear you if needed. If you think you're running too close to a dangerous boundary you probably are. Email chains/flash to everyone in round is appreciated.
-TLDR: My range is generally 27-29. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job.
Stats for your own reference:
2018-2019 VPF Year Average: ~28.5 (220 total speakers)
-Just because I judged for a policy school does not mean because I can follow spreading because I can't. I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. Too many clears in a row will also lead to speaker point loss
-I personally believe that speaker points should be reflective of both how strategic you are and how well you handle the arguments in the round. Engaging with links, warrants, and similar depth type debate that creates a really good round is the easiest way to get higher speaks. That being said, there are other things that you still have to do. (I.e. responding to opponent's arguments/not extending through ink, collapsing, etc.) Expect average speaks to be around 28.
-General Penalties (This is just a condensed list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):
1) taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)
2) taking too long pull up evidence (.5 for every extra 30s after 1:30), teams who disclose are protected.
3) being non strategic (depends on how hard I think you butcher it, includes no weighing/going for everything)
4) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)
5) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you
6) Too much use of the frontline "Our evidence is very specific in saying ___" instead of engaging with the warranting behind argumentation.
7) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears
8) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices
9) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.
10) Severe evidence misrep. (Trust me you prob. won't want to see your speaks if you do this)
-Bonus speaks. When I say my non-bubble average is 28 I mean my average is a 28. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you
1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)
2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)
3) Cutting at least one cross short when you have no questions left (+.2). Note that you cannot cut the entirety of grand cross for obvious reasons
4) Email chaining/flashing the AR/NR with properly cut evidence gets both partners a .5 speaker point bump
5) At any tournament , disclosure on the NDCA wiki gets you 1 speaker pt bonus. Yes you will get a full speaker point bump.
6) If you have an page on the PF Circuit Debater Wiki (found here) with uploaded prep from previous topics, you get a full 1pt speak bump. Circuit Debater is a great resource for all debaters and I'm encouraging you to use it. If you haven't looked at it you should definitely check it out.
I've changed how I explain this part pretty drastically from how it used to be but the ideas remain mostly the same.
- I do not call for evidence unless I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also tend to base my understanding of your ev based on how it was originally read.
- I would suggest reading cut cards in case and having cut cards for anything you read available. Disclosing is good practice and should be mandated, I'll give you a speaker point bonus. Sending speech docs of cards read in rebuttal is also good and you also get bonus speaks.
-If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm not calling for it because you're not getting the extension on my flow. You should know what your own evidence says and if you're trying to do some shady ev misrep that's a definitive no.
-Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.
-"Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In round, a minute thirty to search, -0.5 speaks each minute you go over, I drop it at 3 min. In the case I call for ev after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it".
o L20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.
o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it's a flat speaker point penalty for being unorganized and I drop the ev out of the round.
o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.
-I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.
-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.
-No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging. Will get emails of at least one debater from each team so I can copy rfd from ballot onto an email for all of you.
Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of two people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:
Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round
-If I had more PF teams competing here I wouldn't be judging LD/CX but since you're reading this we're going to have to find a way to make it work.
-If it makes it easier for you to do MJP:
o I never did any LD/CX in high school, just pf. Familiar with structures of CP's/K's/Theory,T and can probably evaluate it on a surface level. I can't follow spreading.
o 2018-2019 Season I judged about maybe 10-12 rounds of LD, 2 at some Dallas local (non bid, relatively small pool), Majority of prelims at UT
-I'm willing to evaluate any standard argument on an offense/defense paradigm and weighing is greatly appreciated (I don't want to have to intervene)
-I reserve the right to drop you for any offensive language
-When making extensions in later speeches, please extend the argument. I don't want just an author name
-I would prefer you to stay away from philosophy because I don't understand it very well.
-For more progressive stuff: As long I think you are doing a good job of engaging with the link story and clash on progressive args, I will reward you with 29-30 speaks hopefully to offer minimum compensation for my lack of ld qualification. If I feel that the debate is revolving around simple stock structure args that are present in every debate space, I will be more picky about speaks (you can reference the pf speaks section above).
-Standard Plan Aff's, DA's, CP's.: I have a general understanding of how these arguments work but if you're doing anything super technical you probably will have to explain it. I don't know what the norms in LD are but please do not read multiple conditional counterplans. Floating pics are not ok either.
-Theory/T: Theory/T comes before case and the default is reasonability no rvi. I had a fair understanding of how these worked in PF but I don't know the norms in LD and you'll have to do explanation and/or analysis on what constitutes abuse for theory. I think I would be lead to believe T more than theory.
-K's: I don't have a great understanding of K debate. I get the link/impact/alt but don't know much about "clash" on k. I haven't read any of the standard LD k evidence so don't expect me to know a lot. I'll try my best to evaluate K but don't expect too much.
-Completely unfamiliar with evaluating >2 Layers so T before K type arguments (or vice versa), meta theory, etc. will require explanation
-If you're reading 3 or more of the same type of off (DA, theory, t, etc.) I need a more specific roadmap. If you are reading any off that is a technical part of ld I will probably need specific explanation.
Speed: If you re planning to spread this is probably where I'm going to have the hardest time following you given my background. Please email me speech docs beforehand and I will clear you if I need to.
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
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 Senior High School in 2017. I debated competitively for four years, competing primarily in PF, extemp, and LD.
Tech over truth, but there's a line. Warrant your arguments well. Don't read blatantly false arguments for the purpose of dumping cards on the flow. Don't read arguments that attempt to bring merit to homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. If there any other questions you may have that aren't covered below, please feel free to ask me before the round starts.
Organization: Organization in your speeches can make a huge difference in how I'm able to judge you. If you can number your responses, refer to evidence by name, and generally signpost well, you are far more likely to exit the round with a win and/or high speaks.
Speed: As long as you're clear, you should be fine. That being said, I tend to enjoy debates that don't delve into the insane speeds seen in other forms of debate. If I'm unable to write something down, I won't vote off of it, so slow down for anything important that you definitely want me to have on my flow. I will not intervene by saying "clear" or putting my pen down to let you know I can't understand you. Make sure you're regulating your own speed and clarity.
Evidence: I generally will not intervene in debates based on evidence unless a claim is especially egregious or if the other team questions the validity of the card. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if asked to, so make sure you have a full PDF, or contextually cut card, of all cited evidence on hand. If any evidence is being flashed or emailed, I would love to receive a copy. Miscut/misconstrued evidence will result in a definite loss of speaker points, depending on how egregious the offense is.
Speaks: I give average speaks, with exceptions being if a debater is rude, unintelligible, or unethical. I take quality of argumentation into account when evaluating speaks, so if you prettily spout nonsense, you probably won't like the outcome.
Framework: I love framework when it's done well, but I know that PF debates often don't have time to fully flesh these out. At a base level, all I'm looking for is extensive weighing of arguments; if you don't need framework to do that, then more power to you. At an LD level, I want to hear clear reasons to prefer arguments.
Extensions: Second rebuttal does not need to respond to first rebuttal, but it would be strategic to respond to turns. First summary does not need to extend defense, unless second rebuttal frontlined. Defense is sticky, but not mentioning any part of your defense in later speeches will probably result in lower speaks. Turns that aren't extended through the summary will be evaluated as defense, but won't be a voting issue. I won't vote on an argument that's dropped in the summary or final focus unless I am left with nothing else to vote on. In my book, 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.
Kritiks: These have to be done exceptionally well for me to vote off of them in Public Forum. Through experience, I have found that these are often not done exceptionally well in PF. Take what you will from that. In LD, go for it, I'll evaluate almost anything.
Plans/Counterplans: Don't pull these out in PF. I'm fine with advocacies if you can show that there is at least a reasonable probability your advocacy would happen. Advocacies/CPs okay for November 2018 PF topic. It's chill in LD.
Theory/Topicality: Only run this if there's substantive abuse. If I don't believe a side is being abusive, even if you win the theory debate, I won't vote on it. I love good topicality debates in LD.
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 RDF 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 😞.
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 😏
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 email@example.com. 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 11 years.
Always, ALWAYS feel like you can ask me for constructive criticism outside of rounds. Unless your attitude is outright hostile, I want you, as a student, to get better.
I'm open to hearing progressive style 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.
Speaking quickly is okay but please do spread. Again - see my belief about how PF should be an event that a layperson can feel comfortable watching. The second speaking team can defend their case in rebuttal but by no means needs to. 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. If too much of the last two speeches are line-by-line I'll get confused and not know where to vote for you.
The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, under view spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down. 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, with some qualifications. I generally try to avoid voting on theory, so running it in front of me is a poor choice unless you believe that the abuse committed against you is genuinely egregious. Don't run skep in front of me; you won't convince me to vote for you by saying there's no such thing as morality. ACs and NCs that don't engage with the resolution directly (e.g., a performance aff that is non-resolutional, a K NC that is, again, non-resolutional, etc.) also will not earn my ballot.
I think our 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 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 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 coach for seven lakes.
I am a lay judge.
any fanmail or questions can be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org
Jason Zhang Paradigm
I graduated from Plano West in 2018. I competed in PF for four years.
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. 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 vote down, 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. That being said, if no explicit framework is agreed upon, I'll default to a cost-benefit analysis. This may or may not be good for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If no one has a question please just sit down and cut crossfire short. No one wants to be there longer than we have to. If no one has a question, end it early and 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.
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. Also, when I read the evidence, I will read the ENTIRE piece of evidence, not just the part that you cite.
I prefer a big picture summary and voter final focus. If you choose to go line by line, you best collapse boy.
I won't vote on anything if it's not in both of these speeches. Parallelism is good!
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!