Plano Senior Clark Swing

2018 — Plano, TX/US

Jane Boyd Paradigm

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS

Number of years coaching CX: 31 LD: 27

Number of years coaching speech and debate: 31

LD:

What many think is progressive debate was done originally in 98-99 by Grapevine Debaters. We just did it better. Good debate is good debate. Keep in mind that trying to be cutting edge does NOT make for good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation - I hate tricks for the sake of tricks. Keep that in mind.

 

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework and/or burdens serve as the same thing - these are mechanisms on how to determine who wins the debate. If a value is used it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply an after thought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is absolutely necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and not acceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic not excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantative issues of the round then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

Evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case however I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I don't like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy but expect that you are able to explain and understand the philosophies that you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD by nature is prefiat, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counterplans and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counterplans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a very difficult job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me on the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based upon what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to the critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then make sure to explain the importance or relevance of that argument don't just give me the "it was dropped so I win argument." I may not buy that it is an important argument; you have to tell me why it is important in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Speed isn't a problem, it is usually clarity that is the problem. Unless words are clear I won't flow the debate. If I am not writing then you probably need to adapt. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritiks:

I have been around long enough to have seen the genesis of Kritik arguments. I have seen them go from bad to worse, to good in policy. I think that K arguments are in the worse state in LD now. Kritiking is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and specifically the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LD is asking me to take an action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That being said, I will listen to the arguments but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I will vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a clear abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is important. Also knowing the difference in topicality and extra-topical. or knowing what non-unique really means is important. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me voting on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic not just generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though unless you have a compelling reason why.

Matt Marxer Paradigm

8 rounds

Hello and thank you for taking the time to read my judging paradigm.

I have been involved in the debate community for about 10 years now, first as a competitor in high school speech and debate, then at Texas Tech as a Parliamentary debater, and more recently helping to coach high schools in a variety of events.

In high school, I primarily competed in Lincoln Douglas debate (where I was the state champion my senior year), as well as Public Forum, however, my experience competing on the Texas Tech Parliamentary debate team gave me more insight into the style of debate more commonly used in Cross Examination debate.

Public Forum and World Schools Debate: I believe that you should speak in a relatively conversational manner. This means no spreading for these two events. I also will note vote for a kritik in either of these events. Make sure that you clash with the arguments made by your opponent. I flow everything in the round, so interaction between teams is very important. Please also provide voters in your final speeches.

Lincoln Douglas: I tend to be a slightly more traditional judge, though I am not opposed to voting for more progressive arguments. I do believe that you should have a framework that includes a value/criterion or some sort of standard, and I am not fond of Kritiks in this event. It is possible you could get me to vote for a critical argument, but it will be an uphill battle for you. I don’t mind speed in LD, but would prefer if you not full on spread. I will tell you “clear” no more than 3 times in a round before I stop flowing. So many debaters try to spread and are terrible at it, leading to stumbling over words and gasping for breath. If you do this, your speaker points will suffer dramatically. I’m not fond of counter plans on LD either, I believe you should negate the topic, but once again, if you can sell it well enough, I will vote for it. The final minutes of the Net rebuttal and the entirety of the 2AR should be spent giving overviews and voters.

Policy: I consider myself to be a tab judge, meaning that I believe it is up to the debaters in each round to tell me what arguments I should weigh most heavily. In Lincoln Douglas and especially in Public Forum, I am not a fan of kritiks or counter plans, however this is not true for Policy. I think that you should debate in the style that suits you best, whatever that may be, so long as you can properly justify yourself.

I am by no means an expert when it comes to kritiks, so if you are going to run one in front of me in a Policy round, please make sure that it is well explained and justified. I am not opposed to voting for one, but you will have to do a good job of convincing me that it is relevant to the specific round.

In Policy, I generally believe that the affirmative side should offer a plan text, please read it out loud twice to make sure that I get it down correctly. The same goes for the negative if you are going to read a counter-plan.

If you are going to read a plan or counter-plan, please offer advantages/disads to support your side/oppose your opponent's.

As far as topicality goes, I believe that you need to prove that there is legitimate abuse in the round for me to vote on it.

Speed is fine, but please make sure that you are speaking clearly. I will say "clear" to each debater no more than three times per round, and if I still cannot understand you, I will simply stop flowing. Too often I see debaters try to spread, but who are not well practiced in it, and end up stumbling over words and being extremely unclear.

I think this should be obvious, but I do still feel it necessary to say: if you make any remarks that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I will automatically vote you down and give you minimum speaker points. That sort of language cannot be tolerated in a debate round (or life).

If you have any more specific questions that I have not addressed here, please feel free to ask me before beginning the debate round.

Nikhil Ramaswamy Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Amber Tanner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Breanna White Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted