Plano West Wolf Classic
2018 — Plano, TX, TX/US
Blake Andrews Paradigm
email@example.com email with questions or for email chain purposes.
update for St. Marks - 1. I've only judged a handful of rounds on the current topic/ I'm not familiar with the literature. 2. Please slow down on tags and analytics. 3. Please extend warrants for arguments.
-I have a second email attached to tabroom that also includes more of my judging record.
Update Nov 2018- I have noticed more hostility in the debate community and would strongly prefer debaters be civil towards one another. I don't want this statement to discourage individual's from making jokes or having fun in round, but I don't tolerate overly confrontational behavior, hostile behavior, racism, sexism, and discrimination in round. I reserve the right to decrease speaks and in the most extreme cases drop a debater for creating a hostile environment.
Some general information
-I enjoy judging high quality K/ Performance debaters and am reading more critical literature in my free time.
- I am normally somewhat familiar with each topic.
- I am probably not the best judge for hardcore T and theory debates(that doesn't mean I won't evaluate these arguments, but I would prefer the debate be focused elsewhere if possible).
-I am ambivalent about disclosure theory, but will vote on it and have voted on it in the past if won in round.
If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best to articulate my decision at the end of each round and highlight a few things each debater can improve upon.
Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well)
I took this from M. Overing's paradigm and I think it sums up what I want debaters to do in a round pretty well.
"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."
Side note ignore any grammar problems I’m writing this quickly.
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015
prior:George Washington University ( where I briefly competed in college CX and went to some local and regional tournaments)
Parish Episcopal (competed in LD and extemp every now and then. Go to my LD section for more about my high school debate career)
Paperless stuff- I don’t count time for flashing evidence, but will severely dock speaks if someone is stealing prep time. When someone else is flashing nobody should be taking prep.
LD- When I debated I was in out rounds at TFA state, Churchill, Stanford, Colleyville, and Alta (for LD). I will attempt to keep this as short as possible. Speed is fine and policy arguments are also fine. I mostly ran util and semi critical positions in high school, but I'm fine with whatever type of argument you want to go for( Ie go for the CP/DA if you want to or the K... I'm cool with either strat). Some things I like, but don't often seen in LD include---> debaters conceding to arguments, but still explaining why they win the round, weighing offense( i.e. scope, magnitude, probability etc), and K's with really specific links to the aff. I will increase speaks for debaters who conceded to arguments, weigh well, or run K's with specific and clear links to the aff ( rather than generic backfile link cards)
Policy – Ive judge a handful of rounds on the 2016-2017 high school topic, but I don't judge often( I primarily judge LD) . If you have questions before the round and want to know anything specific I will do my best to articulate how I view debate and give you any insights into my paradigm. Aff should probably be topical, but its possible to win that T doesn’t matter. . I haven't read a ton of critical literature, but I'm familiar with most of the authors K debaters use regularly. Specific DA’s and counterplans are great. Kritiks that link to the aff are great. Link of omission K’s are not. Word pics, and other random stuff is fine. I'm a big picture kind of guy. Please explain what the role of the ballot is and you should be in good shape. Also, I will definitely want to be on the email chain so hook me up!
Vishal Bandaru Paradigm
Clearly my name is Vishal Bandaru or you wouldn't have found me. I am a sophomore in college and I am doing model un but I did LD all 4 years of HS. I qualified for TFA state junior and senior year and for the most part I judge LD or PF. I can judge CX, speed is not the issue for me. Usually with CX I am not familiar with the hierarchy of arguments on the flow so I can't evaluate them as a CX judge would normally.
Speed - 7/8 - I say this because I will get everything if you are not TOC qualled, if you are I would go a little slower at the start and let me adapt to your pace and then you can spread your heart out.
Phil - 8 - I was a phil debater and by Phil I dont mean K, I mean like social contract, act/rule/hedonistic util, virtue ethics, things of this nature. Make sure that analytics are properly flushed out.
Theory - 8 - I was good at theory but I didn't initiate because I have a high threshold of abuse. I don't have default for norms or reasonability, same with rvis. Make sure u read voters, I don't want to drop you due to lack of voters. Also be clear what you mean when you read jurisdiction of the judge
ROB - 7 - I understand ROB arguments decently but if you are reading a K there are better people to pref than me. I will get the arguments on the flow but I will struggle with a hierarchy and the internal turns between ROBS.
Off - 8 - go for it, cps, das, skep, fatalism, other phil off, theory, ks, multiple ncs, are all welcome but if you read them conditionally just be ready for theory.
Ks - 6 - I seperate ROB and K because ROB doesn't mean K, i.e. rob with plan or embedded in theory. This is just to remphasize I am not the best person for Ks. DnG is not for me, I am tab but I garuntee you I will not understand everything. I will be able to evaluate it in round and that won't be an issue, I also don''t have a predisposition against Ks, but there are much better people at evaluating Ks so if this is for prefs and you love Ks, I would put me slightly lower.
PF paradigms - I am progressive do what you want
CX paradigms - Slightly slower on tags, Make sure to explain the hierarchy of arguments in the round, I will get everything but that being said framework in cx is different than framework in LD so just make things more explicit on how I evaluate the round, good ballot story pls.
Tricks/pre-standards/other nibs - I realize these have died out in TFA circuit but I am fine with them if you are a tricks debater. I did them all the time but I realize that this style has died out. Also threshold when someone reads tricks is pretty low for theory.
These were my older paradigms - in case you want to read them.
Hey, I am from the Austin circuit, I qualled for TFA state for LD twice.
I was a phil/plans debater but I also most familiar with theory and pre-standards.
I like listening to Ks but I am not great at evaluating the nuances within them or performance Ks. I can evaluate them but I would prefer not to listen to dense DnG, or anracha-indigenism. Again I will try to evaluate but I am not the best person for it, and if you do read it, make sure u clarify the implications of the performance in round and also what order the pre-fiat args ur reading in round come first. I.E. if you are reading fem and say that initiating discourse is a pre-fiat reason to vote u up and then read a poem as a perspective and say that introducing perspectives comes as a pre-fiat to understanding the feminist perspective which is root to all the forms of oppression. Tell me which one comes first, because if they manage to turn the link to the poem but you are still winning discourse and there isn’t any other offense, I am not sure how to resolve that dilemma without a hierarchy within the role of the ballot. Presumably the poem would come first but arguably initiating discourse is more important because it is a prerequisite for the poem being read.
Similarly, if you are reading multiple meta-theory shells, explain which ones come first. This will reduce the overall judge intervention in muddled rounds. I want to use the least work possible. In terms of defaults, I have none in theory but if neither reasonability or competition interpretation are given, I will assume reasonability. Same goes for spirit/text of interp.
I ask that you don’t read racial/sexist arguments unless they are used in a sarcastic manner to enhance an AC as a representation of modern society.
Also, if u have a pen or paper to share, you will always have a place in my heart.
Theory - 8/9 Spreading - 6/7 Ks - 5-7 Pre-standards - 8 (just don’t read multi-part NIBS) Phil - 8/9 Skep - 8 Phil off - 6/7
Sketchy things that I will evaluate but you need to make explicit: Contingent standards, most p-standards, paragraph theory (most judges will but I just feel sometimes it is pretty shady), drop the debater implication on competing interp (but I will drop you if you read it and then they read a competing interp and another shell, and u don’t read a competing interp to their shell, they don’t need to explicitly make the arg but if it is implied I will extend it for them). moral pluralism - multiple fwk with multiple standards, skep is great, non-topical Ks (make it explicit why this should be a voting issue), etc.
Ask me before round if you have any specific questions.
Although I am chill with most arguments, run it by me if you think it is questionable.
Speaks: I don’t have a specific system but I award speaks based on strategy and clarity. I will drop speaks from 30 based on how unclear you are. Normally I won’t drop for having a bad strategy but if I decreased speaks from clarity I will increase them if I respect the strategy.
Please for the love of debate, weigh offense under a util framing. I don’t want to do that work and I don’t think you want me to do it either. Although I give leeway for extensions, I will not do the work for you.
Megan Barnes Paradigm
Debate is an educational activity, and part of that education is two people negotiating on the terms of the round. Do what you need to do for both competitors to have the best round possible.
That said, if you're somebody whose case is claiming end-of-world level harms, have very strong links, and the fewer the better. I'm not a fan of scorched-Earth arguments that are tenuous at best.
Spreading is fine, but enunciating, and know your cards. It's more distracting (and detrimental to your overall speech) if you're going fast and stumbling rather than simply slowing down a bit. I am not a judge that will yell clear - the burden of clarity is on the speaker, not the listener.
I am a flow judge, but have been known to not take as many notes for 1A if it's a stock case I've already heard 8 rounds of.
Aisha Bawany Paradigm
- If you have any questions: message me on Facebook, Instagram, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated in high school in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national circuit, and 2 years in PF. I did policy debate for two years at UT Dallas.
I'm fine with speed just please be clear.
I believe you need some sort of framework/way for me to evaluate the round. Don't assume that because I did policy that I default to a consequentialist/magnitude impacts. If you want me to evaluate that, you need to have a value/criterion that says that I should evaluate arguments on the scale of consequentialism. I ran different philosophical frameworks when I did LD and enjoy listening to unique ones and the way you justify your position through it. You may be able to convince me that disclosure is good in LD.
I'm going to be honest when I say I'm predisposed to preferring topical aff positions in policy because I have mostly debated with topical policy cases. That is not to say that I won't vote on them, just that I am not the best judge to evaluate K v. K debates, and K Affs v. Framework debates. However, I do have experience running/understanding those arguments because my partner and I ran a nontopical aff for half a semester, so don't stop running those arguments, just make it easier for me to understand the method by which I should evaluate the round. For off cases, I think you need to win a link (by link, I mean a link, not a risk of a link, I mean a LINK) in order for me to vote on any K/DA. Disclosure is good.
- Debate is a game
- The point of debate is to be persuasive, so I think that as long as you persuade me on something, and have some good cards (even if they're untrue) then I'll vote for you. I love people that can answer arguments using a few logical responses. Quality over quantity.
- I will vote on everything in round if it's explained well and you win the argument. Caveat to that is that I don't care about out of round impacts or voting for you because you're discriminated against (sorry not going to give you a W for that guys)
- Debate warrants, not tags. Name the argument not the author. I don't know your case as well as you do to remember your authors name
- I don't read evidence unless it's contested/important. What does that mean? It means that I'm not going to read through your entire case and defend you because that's not my job. It means that YOU need to understand that I can keep up and flow, but you need to extend arguments and not expect me to offer concessions to you. This trend of "oh they have my case in front of them so they don't need me to do anything" doesn't count.Your speech matters. That's why you stand up and talk for a long ass time
- Also LOL @ you if you try to post round me, because idgaf, and my decision isn't fucking changing :)
- To those who like to spread really fast through analytical theory arguments that haven't been written up: good job, I'll probably miss a lot of those arguments, so it's on you for me missing those.
>>>> it basically goes like this:
- Debater spreads analytics so fast that judge can't keep up while flowing
- Judge votes for other debater because they missed something probably important because the debater didn't slow down
Erick Berdugo Paradigm
My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but that is the only first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed so that they are consistent.
If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.
There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.
Things I have voted for AND against
K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation.
counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.
Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters that’s what I will likely default to.
Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I end towards post fiat worlds in close debates.
RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 9-7-19
Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.
I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.
Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.
Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.
Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think that High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The debate format is not that of exclusive conversations academics would have. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.
So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.
i do not have a have a problem for a spread. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think promoting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise.
I do not put myself as part of the email chain as I think by reading along it lowers the standard of the verbal communicative aspect of the debate.
I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.
You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.
When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document.
Jane Boyd Paradigm
School: Grapevine HS
Number of years coaching CX: 31 LD: 27
Number of years coaching speech and debate: 31
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rachel Denney Paradigm
LD is value-based debate. All arguments should ultimately support why a debater's value is both more important and more relevant to the resolution than the opponent's value, as well as demonstrate how the value is upheld by their side. The criterion should be an important weighing mechanism throughout the round, not a secondary value or a throwaway addition.
"Definitions upon request." - If they aren't verbally stated in the round, they don't count. Your opponent shouldn't have to waste their questioning time to get them, and I can't request them.
"Squo/util/hege/[acronyms that aren't specified and aren't common knowledge]" - Time limits make being brief important. I get it. But presentation matters, so don't let unnecessary word-shortening get in your way. And if I lose a few seconds of content trying to piece together what you might have meant, something's not getting flowed.
Kritiks, T-shells, and other non-traditional or CX elements of debate - If there's not a rule against it, and it makes sense to use it (and there's absolutely no traditional element that can work better), go ahead. But it needs to tie into your value and criterion in a meaningful and persuasive way (as do all things).
All arguments need to be well-organized and logical. Debaters need to explain why the results/impacts/disads they list are likely to happen and why they are positive or negative. Any argument or argument style is fine as long as debaters can establish the reasonability of it.
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.
Madi Gackenbach Paradigm
Head coach at Plano East Senior High.
In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional. Kritiks are not a favorite, I feel like they are too generic and lazy debating. On case attacks are important! Theory, CPs, PICs, RoB, DAs, are all good.
In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.
I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.
I do not tolerate rudeness. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness results in lowest speaks possible.
Include me in on email chains: email@example.com.
I look forward to hearing you speak!
Emma Herring Paradigm
Quick paradigm if you're running to round:
Do you, whatever that is. I'll keep up, just explain your argument and why it matters. Love kritiks, good with policymaking, pls make it a fun and interesting round, whatever that means for you!
Personal experience in debate:
I competed in LD for 3 years, and CX my senior year at Prosper High School. I competed on the UIL, TFA, and TOC circuits. I won second in state in UIL CX, and competed in outrounds of multiple TOC bid tournaments, so I am familiar with most if not all debate styles.
General view of debate:
Debate might be a game but it's also a space for people to learn, grow, and survive. I tend to favor arguments that are conducive to these aspects of the event rather than just "winning." That being said, I like topic specific prep and I like things that matter.
Please ask for pronouns and provide Trigger Warnings if necessary before the round
Predispositions in round:
(no matter what event you’re in, an argument is an argument, so the meat of my paradigm is here. There are just a few differences on my evaluation of policy vs LD which is why those sections are so small)
1. No offensive args- ill drop you if you say racist/sexist/etc things at my own discretion
2. Speed is fine
-Interps, tags, authors little slower,
-pls distinguish when you're moving to a new arg (i.e. saying “next” or “and”)
-SPECIFIC LINKS PLS
-Im not a huge fan of the long overview, they're hard to flow, just do the line by line
-Love a good k on k debate, just be clear on method, framing, and weighing
-Pls don’t read a k that you don’t understand bc someone handed you a file. It will make me sad.
-Clear link and alt explanation in the 2NR is essential for me to vote for you
-Must win framing
- I am most familiar with lit regarding fem and pedagogy. I am also familiar with pomo, afropess, and queer theory but I have not gotten as deep into the lit. You can assume I know generally what you're talking about but please if you're using specific terms be clear about what they mean.
4. K alts
-They are either prefiat, in round strategies OR postfiat, not both. A prefiat k alt claiming to solve the impacts of the aff doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Pls pick one, and don’t conflate the two or I will be confused.
-I love a good example
-Perms are not offense, you need net benefits in order to put you ahead in the debate
5. non T affs
-I love them, I ran them, I like when they are done well
-I do think the resolution as a stasis point is a good norm for debate, I think you can be T without reading a plan, I would like for “non-T” affs to be at least somewhat in the direction of the topic but that is not a must.
-If you read kritikal turns to T/FW using the scholarship of the aff I will be very happy
-You don’t need a plan but you do need a clearly articulated method
-Jettisoning the aff and reading 4 (if LD) or 5 (if policy) minutes of theory in the 1AR is a viable strat. Ive given 1ARS that are straight theory, ill vote for it if you commit.
-Sure debate is a game but it is also a very important space for learning and surviving, and I find those framing arguments more persuasive than fairness
-Having a solvency advocate is a sufficient answer to many theory objections (if the arguments are fleshed out, you have to do that work)
-Usually default CI, but make the argument for reasonability and ill vote for it
7. Flashing is not prep, prep ends when the speech doc has been compiled. That being said don’t take long pls.
-Higher for good technique, I start at a 28.5 and usually go up. Im generally pretty generous.
9. Case flow
-Love it, do it, be specific, read their own evidence back to them and you'll get high speaks
10. Disclosure is good for debate. Lower threshold for small schools, very high threshold for big schools. I won't vote on disclosure theory if you read it against someone who doesn’t have a wiki because they’re from a small school.
-binding, flex prep is fine
-I love a good cx, pls use it for questions beyond clarification. Using cx to get ahead in the debate will get you higher speaks.
Rando: yay for puns! Give me pathos!
-Will vote for RVIs
2. Pls don’t read skep
3. I don't like tricks
-my threshold for answering tricks is super low lol. tell me its stupid and ill be like yes and vote you up.
-Carded TVAs are very persuasive
-Case lists are very persuasive
-RVIs in policy are silly, but I guess if you win the argument I’ll vote for it
-Did not run a whole lot of these in highschool. I was the 2N and usually just did 6 minutes of the Kritik and 2 minutes of case flow. I will still vote on Disads/cps, just be very clear with the internal link story pls.
-Impact calc is key
-It will make me happy if the CP is specific to the aff.
-Weighing is essential.
-I will vote on CP theory, especially 50 states fiat bad
Kanza Jafri Paradigm
Brijan Kana Paradigm
I have competed in every event under the "debate" umbrella EXCEPT for CX. To be clear, I’m not as technically proficient as a policy judge would be- you have a better chance persuading me than bombarding me with jargon. Refer to the categories below for specific events.Speaker Points:
Debaters start with 28 speaks.
How to Lose Speaker Points: I will say clear twice before deducting speaker points. During cross examination, attack the speech, not the debater- if you harass your opponent in cross examination, speaker points will be deducted.
How to Gain Speaker Points: Be a generally clear speaker. Slow down on tags if you’re spreading.
LD I spent a lot of my time doing traditional, "by the book" LD, but I’ve seen my fair share of progressive debate. Debate with the style that you're most comfortable debating, but know that I decide winners on who best carries as much of their case as possible to the end of the round.
Kritiks - I’m unlikely to buy alts that rely on the way I sign the ballot.
Theory/T- Basic understanding.
DA's - I prefer a traditionally structured neg case over DA’s.
PF Debaters should try and stick to an "ask-answer" format during grand cross. I know that grand crosses get messy, and debaters begin to argue and explain their case after someone responds to a question. If you begin to explain your case rather than asking questions, I will deduct speaks. Overall, I decide winners by whichever debaters appear more synced in terms of teamwork. That means debaters who extend their partner's arguments as opposed to only creating new ones will win over those who have their separate debates with the corresponding speaker on the other team. (I want 1st speakers to clash with 2nd speakers instead of speakers having 2 debates).
World Schools Debate I was on the NSDA Lone Star WSD team for 2 years. I understand that this event can be hard to fully grasp due to the focus on presentation over just argumentation.
1st speakers: Present your case. Do not read off the paper, especially if it's a prepared motion. I will be more lenient on impromptu motions.
2nd speakers: Pace yourself. Don't rush through offense or constructive, or else I'll deduct speaks.
3rd speakers: Set up the 4th speech's voters. Give me a hint at what I will have to be looking at in terms of clash points in the round. If you can do this better than your opponent, then you have a better chance at winning my vote. (Note: I'm a huge fan of the 3 question structure. Ask me about it before the round if you're not familiar with it.)
4th speakers: Summarize the voters as best you can. If you cannot give me decent voters, then I have no reason to vote for you.
Ron Long Paradigm
I competed in multiple events in UIL, TFA, TOC, NSDA circuits. You either win, you learn, or both. I'm a philosophy-government double major, french and history minors at UT.
2018-present: Texas Debate; Policy
2018-present: Student Assistant at UIL Speech and Debate Department
2014-2018: Princeton High School
Generally, I’m a gamer judge. Do what you do best. For me, that means you can run any argument whatsoever if you warrant, analyze, and contextualize the argument. Though, I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense and impact calculus.
Arguments consists of claim, warrant, impact. How I flow is probably how I'll end up voting. I value the pedagogical benefit of comparative analysis and reasoning, as it pertains to arguments and debate rounds. Extensions and explanations are probably important.
I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and impacted-out arguments.
I’m okay voting for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.
After the neg block, I like to see a strategic collapsing of arguments.
For specific strategies and threshold voting questions, just ask me before the round.
Try not to...
...make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably just start deducting speaker points.
...cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.
I'll try not to judge intervene, though.
I don’t count flashing/speech drop/email chain as prep time, as long as it isn’t unnecessarily drawn out.
Speed is fine, go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 515 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing). I like hearing tag lines, analysis/analytics, and citations, so slow down a bit.
I like a good framework debate and I’m okay with voting for any framework you tell me to vote under. Key points come down to which team presents the best model for debate, their justifications, nuances of the weighing mechanism, and probably win an external impact. You should probably be leveraging arguments off of case.
I won't necessarily default to competing interps, reasonability, or other frameworks, etc. There are general parts of T (interp, violation, standards-voters, impacts, etc). If you go for T, then give me thorough reasons to vote for T. On aff, I think it is strategic that you can make theory or pre-fiat arguments that precede Topicality.
I consider theory to be like the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed or presented. There are general parts (interpretation, violations, impacts, etc.) If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then warrants and impacts, and why I should evaluate. Actually, if you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), just flesh it out.
NOTE: For theory- and T- type impacts like education or fairness, I probably think fairness is an internal link to education, but can be convinced otherwise.
Yeah, I’m good with them. I like the specific disad debate, if you decide to go for DA(s). This means that when you win the disad, you should also be winning a disad-case comparison (for example: disad outweighs case, disad turns case, etc.).
Any type of counterplan is cool. PICs are cool. For you to win the counterplan, you probably need to win some sort of net benefit and/or mutual exclusivity, and comparative analysis.
I’m cool with it. I read Technocracy (mostly) and Myth of Model Minority my senior year. I also read Disaster Cap, and Baudrillard. Give me an overview for the K, mostly in case I am unfamiliar with it. Even if you think it is common, tell me how it functions in the round and applies to the topic or the aff (the specific link, even if it’s a rebuild, wall or magnifier in the 2NC).
Be specific. For example, saying “Perm do both” just isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency-component debate and its relation/effectiveness to the aff/neg. (Advocacy vs Test, severance, timeframe, etc.)
Good with any format, I would prefer you give me an ROB and/or ROJ, if it’s performance, and/or K affs. Take clear stances, advocacies, and contextualize it to the subject of the conversation/resolution. Flesh out the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.
Ask questions. Answer the explicit-implicit “how” and “why” questions. I prefer overviews over (haha get it?) underviews. Probably have offense and defense.
For other style specific questions, just ask.
Jennifer Melin Paradigm
Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)
Email for email chains:
If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.
-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.
I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.
In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.
That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.
Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.
l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.
I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.
One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.
I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.
I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.
Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.
Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.
I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.
Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.
Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.
You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.
Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.
Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.
Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.
Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.
Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.
Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.
Dawn Paciotti Paradigm
Speaking fast does not make you a better debater. I can tolerate a clipped conversational pace. If you are double breathing and blurring words together, I will say clear. If you are in an outround and the other two judges are okay with speed, you may be tempted to go faster. It's certainly your choice, but if I don't understand your arguments, I'm not going to vote on them. I have a higher tolerance for speed in the 1AR. Speeding through cases will just annoy me.
In terms of argumentation, I am open to anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon you will want to explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.
I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead.
Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. If you disregard my preferences on speed, that's another route to lower speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.
Demarcus Powell Paradigm
Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm. firstname.lastname@example.org
Only send speech docs to for Dallas tournaments email@example.com.For national circuit tournament please send speech docs to firstname.lastname@example.org
ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.
About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years .Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.
Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.
Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.
Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.
Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!
Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.
- Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.
Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.
General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.
Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.
Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.
Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.
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
Mario Shields Paradigm
Word of advice.... Always see if your judge has a posted paradigm online. Save yourself time and frustration and read for comprehension. Get clarification as needed and then don't just disregard what you find out about that judge.
YOUR MAIN CONCERN SHOULD NEVER BE SPEED. FOCUS ON CLARITY AND EFFICIENCY AND THE JUDGE WILL BE IN YOUR CORNER BY DEFAULT.
My mindset going into the round is basic the Aff will prove that the plan or case is a viable/moral/good idea that I should approve of with them gaining the ballot. The Neg will prove that the aff doesn't uphold or violates the resolution and that negating is the only truth of the resolution after all.
I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA you get the jist I have a zero tolerance policy for and I promise I will have no problem setting you straight dont test it.
I strive to be Tabula R. but will always weigh STOCK ISSUES 1st. Don't overcomplicate the story bc presumption is also in play. Keep my flow clean and I am your friend ... if you don't then I make no promises. Remember your primary goal is to communicate a viable policy option so persuade me that you know what you are selling. Signposting is very important ... watch my flipping of pages etc since I still flow on paper. There should be structure not just 1 long stream of thought moving down the flow. Im big picture and open minded to strategy and games playing.
Neg's please don't just waste time throwing up 15 arguments when 3-4 will be more strategic... and please kick out properly. On K Aff's don't overlook simple stock issues burdens being dropped. I see a lot of teams not go for the obvious because they think that they are going to set off a trigger warning. ALWAYS get some case offense and defense unless you're going to truly commit to T.
Also plan out the positions for strategy even if generic.... sometimes things that still work get dropped too soon ... make the Aff work for it. Also cover as many stock issues as possible or at least go on case and really look for weaknesses. Always give us a reason to doubt the 1AC. Even if its a small chance it could be the tie breaker that gains you the ballot by pushing you into no other reason but to negate.
Topicality - rare that I vote on so be prepared to prove the abuse if its just a way to time skew then my advice is to spend another minute on case you have a better tradeoff that works for me.
Kritiks - the link in round is most important... also I need to believe that you know what you are trying to accomplish with the Kritik fyi not many high schoolers are truly prepared here so please do your due diligence... keep it simple.
Counterplans - net benefit and competition... give me a reason that the Plan is not the CP
Perms - slow down to speed up ... make sure that you dont leave any confusion
Framework - How do I evaluate the round ... Tell me what matters most.
In CX please stand and face the judge only never your opponent and dont be "lazy" stand tall and proud. ALWAYS convey confidence.
I prefer a more traditional approach to LD over progressive but I will adapt if you communicate to me what you want to happen.
I will always give you a fair evaluation no matter what you present as long as you are confident and OWN your personal compelling reasons to prefer how you interpret the resolution. Give me conceptual points over trying to fit in 5-7 more cards.
Again I prefer big picture logical storytelling not just more "evidence". That being said most importantly support your premise of the resolution and may the ballot be ever in your favor.
Aff - Take advantage of 1st and last speech. Never forget the importance of definitions and setting up a strong weighing mechanism in the AC. I have a super high threshold on theory so save yourself a lot of time in the 1AR giving me clear reasons that the Neg should have just read a counterdefinition rather than make you spend 2 minutes of your speech to address it properly. That to me is way more reasonable and actually kicks the abuse claims back on the Neg.
You set the tone dont waste it Tell us what the resolution wants us to settle and allow for your framework to work towards that goal. Give solid structure in your case and build great analytics from a wide variety of cards over just 1 author... the power of multiple sources backing up your advocacy is an advantage. I do prefer Value and Criteria.. still not sure how you can affirm without it. Any other "standards" can be easily challenged if a neg opponent calls a warranted BS.
Neg - I will allow policy positions but please understand that in a question of SHOULD/OUGHT/MORALITY that they don't always apply exactly the same. The goal isnt 1 man CX debate. In my humble but accurate opinion you do alot more work to achieve less results. Have fun and think of how u can be more productive by making life more complicated for your opponent rather than yourself. Again on reading Topicality I feel it is super abusive in LD because there are other ways to pressure your opponent into dropping arguments etc. You truly have to prove it ... it just makes more sense to me to just read a counterdefinition or to give a definition and now you get to redefine the round how you see it. Let's make life simple when its an option.
Ok after seeing too many rounds where this has become an issue I have to mention the following... BE NICE / CORDIAL to your opponents in the round and as a general policy for being a good human to each other. Rudeness and aggression will make me more likely to vote for the team that plays the game fairly and professionally. In CX I am used to the banter that teams have developed with teams that they hit all the time or the level of coyness blended with sass of an LD round but remember overall PF was intended to have the feel of a lay town meeting so I recommend keep it simple and it doesnt hurt to say the topic multiple times. NOTE no matter what popular opinions and trends try to tell you this isnt micro CX so dont overcomplicate your life. Tell the story and AGAIN Keep it simple / Im an avg joe US taxpayer ... logic and confidence are key be captain obvious on my flow as to why you win !!
John Sims Paradigm
Yes, I want to be on the email chain. email@example.com
Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!
Garrett Telfer Paradigm
I've competed in Public Forum Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and done a small group of one-time speech events.
Most of my experience by far is in LD.
Speed is fine insofar as it is agreed between competitors. If someone would prefer a slower-speaking round I expect that to be conveyed to their opponent and I before the round.
Any case structure is fine, but I have a high threshold on theory.
I have more experience with Kritiks, Traditional/Criterion-based cases, and Disads than Plans/CPs and Theory, but I'm reasonably familiar with each.
If you have any specific questions that aren't answered here, feel free to ask before round, while your opponent is present.
Mink sandhu Paradigm
My bread and butter are the stock issues. I personally believe debate is a communicative event and fast speeds inhibit that aspect. The affirmative should defend 100% of their case, especially the stock issues.
The affirmative should always be topical and uphold that stock issue.
I have no tolerance for kritiks. I will default affirmative on a policy framework.
Core ground that the negative should always have. I prefer evaluating a well-developed disadvantage through impact calculus.
I will vote on a CP if the negative wins a net benefit and mutual exclusivity.
I prefer traditional LD. Slow speed, always have a value and criterion.
I will vote on framework, although its not necessary to have one. I do not like spreading in PF.