Plano West Wolf Classic
2018 — Plano, TX, TX/US
Nihar Annam Paradigm
did PF '18-'20 at Plano West ('16-'18 at Jasper but we won't talk about that)
uncarded warrants > unwarranted cards.
im super super warrant heavy - just reading 20 card tags and calling it rebuttal isn't a strategy. Going for TRUTH is not as incompatible with the TECH as you'd like to think.
The first time you warrant an argument, I will take that as your warrant. This doesn't mean that I will vote for an argument with poor warrant extension, but if the first time you provide/explain the warrant is not in the first speech you read the argument, I will not consider the argument.
if you read anything racist/ableist/sexist/etc. its an L20
im fine with speed - if you're unclear i'll ask you to slow down; if you're clear but I can't flow i'll just call for a speech doc. The faster you go, the more important it is to signpost. Please don't spread out novices.
evidence ethics are super important - please use cut cards in case. I'd rather you read an uncarded warrant than misconstrue evidence to fit your warrant. theres a good chance I drop you if an important card is misconstrued.
I don't really care about cross - if something important happens, mention it in a speech. That said, I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk in cross.
I'm going to be really reluctant to vote on new weighing in ff, please start it earlier.
First summary does not need to extend defense that isn’t frontlined in the first rebuttal. Defense is sticky.
Extensions need to have a clear citation, and short crystallization of the warrant AND impact before I can vote on it. I'll give you marginal offense with a poorly extended impact, but no offense from a poorly extended warrant.
The second rebuttal has to respond to all of 1st rebuttal or it's considered dropped.
if you read DA's in second rebuttal I'm just not going to consider to flow them. first rebuttal gets more leeway, but i'll still buy a mini paragraph shell that tells me to ignore independent offence that comes after case.
I vote prob > mag unless given a reason not to
im fine with theory and well explained, limited jargon Ks. no tricks or topicality tho.
if you read progressive stuff on a clearly novice team, I'll either tank your speaks or just down you.
I would strongly prefer if carded framing (like GPP extinction framing or whatever) was in case - it makes for actual fw debate.
I believe very strongly in durable fiat. I'm not going to intervene on args, but my threshold for work needed to win a durable fiat arg is very low.
If you want to debate plans/cps for whatever reason, I'm fine with it on the conditions of: a) both sides agree before the round and b) the other side gets their plan/cp too.
I also agree with everything from these people's paradigms:
There might be stuff I missed: just ask me before round
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.
Rich Bordner Paradigm
I have degrees in philosophy, but am a lay judge.
1) *Definitely no spreading. Not just that....speak at a normal pace. Slow down. I realize this might cramp your style, but that's me. If I have an email chain doc in front of me, I can manage speed. It's just that I vastly prefer a debate spoken at normal rate of speech. It's more enjoyable, just as a meal eaten at a normal rate of speed is more enjoyable when compared to a quickly inhaled meal. If one competitor spreads and the other does not, all else being equal, that's a mark against the former competitor in my book.
2) Go easy on the debate jargon. I get the technicalities of debate, but I weigh overall persuasiveness and cogency of argument more. In other words, just because you have no dropped arguments and your opponent has one or two, or this or that argument of your opponent's is not topical, that is not automatically decisive. Remember, I'm a lay judge. Though I've judged between 30-40 competitive debates at this point, I just do not get obsessive about the points of the "sport." Plus, if you can't explain things in a commonsense way that the average person can get, sans the jargon that those in the in crowd speak to each other, to me that means you do not fully grasp what you are trying to communicate.
3) Even though my background is philosophy, I do not go for theory debates high on K and hoity-toity academic jargon. Jargon, in general, turns me off of your case. Clarity is supreme, as is simplicity (this is different from dumbing something down and making a 'simple-minded' case.).
4) When it comes to your framework and value, I prefer you picking an actual ethical or meta-ethical system (Kantian/deontology, Utilitarian/Consequentialist, Divine Command, Aristotelian Eudaimonia, Virtue Ethics, Subjectivism, Communist, Critical Theory/Postmodernism, Egoism, Emotivism, etc etc etc), and building your case based on that, rather than sloganeering such as "my value is morality." Things like latter are equivalent to saying "my value is value," show a lack of deep understanding of ethics and value, and are a complete waste of your time. Of course you think your side is moral, as does your opponent. Any case that is not moral will not win, and in a sense, just about any case anyone makes trades on concepts of morality, so it kind of goes without saying...so don't say it. ***Clarification: point #3 above still stands. You should make your value and framework understandable, rather than using terms only the few will be able to follow.
5) Speaking of: Clarity counts big time! Define your terms precisely, if you define your terms in a circular way (ex: "justice=acting justly."), or if you show that you lack understanding of your basic framework or criteria (ex: you reject your opponent's framework of utilitarianism, yet state your framework as "maximizing wellbeing for the most people," well, that's utilitarianism, or at least pretty close to it, which you just rejected), you have just dug yourself into a pretty big hole, one that will be mighty hard to dig out of, no matter how many arguments your opponent drops.
6) Your warrant should be quality, and you should be able to explain at length *how* your warrant supports your contention. Connect the dots for me. Don't leave me with the impression that you are setting up non sequiturs. You are the speaker, so you must do that work....don't leave it up to me to try to connect it all together. Also be able to defend why I should listen to your source. What qualifies him/her as knowledgeable?
Nihal Charmani Paradigm
Lexie Cree Paradigm
My name is Lexie Cree and I study political science and history in Dallas. I did LD debate throughout high school but also did Extemporaneous speaking and Oratory. I did Public Forum once before realizing that I’m not that kind of person.
I competed at the national tournament and competed at other high-level tournaments in my career. I was coached by one of the best LD coaches in the nation who produced national champions.
One important thing: I debated in Missouri, so I can appreciate a traditional style as a result. This does not mean that I cannot follow progressive debate styles.
Main judging philosophy: debate is a communication activity that prepares you for so many things. Don’t make the round about confusing your opponent, that isn’t productive at all and annoys me more than anything.
Value: this is the second most important thing to me. Do not let the value/value criterion fall through the cracks in the round. Don’t use morality as a value either, please.
Speed: I think spreading is stupid but I can follow it. I like passion, though. If that’s the reason for your speed, that’s okay.
Theory: if you can’t explain it, don’t run it.
Round content: make it good. Don’t make connections where there aren’t any.
Gender issues: if you are a male and you are debating a female, do not be a jerk because your opponent is a female. Subtle sexism in debate is NOT okay and will NOT be tolerated.
Andrew Crosswhite Paradigm
Manoj Donthineni Paradigm
Pranay Gundam Paradigm
I have debated regularly on the North Texas circuit for 4 years and consider myself fairly tab/flow/however you want to say it.
If 2nd rebuttal extends frontlines then 1st summary should extend defense (if 2nd rebuttal frontlines everything, just do the best you can in summary and if they go for offense you didn't extend defense for then you can extend defense from rebuttal).
Offense you want to go for has to be in every speech save rebuttals (although I do like frontlining in 2nd rebuttal).
General Progressive Arguments:
I didn't do CX or LD, but I kinda understand how Plans, CP, DA's, and K's work.
I will evaluate them as normal PF arguments, and they should be restructured in such a fashion and explained in cross a little.
I am pretty neutral to theory, but I think that there are some pretty bad norms in PF and I think theory might help fix them.
I will give speaks based on what I think you deserve, these are most likely going to be on the upper spectrums though. That being said I like it when everyone stands up during grand cross
I don't like waiting (I think evidence should either be on hand or be kicked), so if you take too long to find evidence I'll dock speaks.
I'll call for evidence when:
1) I feel that you are misconstruing it
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 (often times I'll still call for it even if there is evidence weighing).
4) I'm interested
I don’t auto drop debaters on evidence abuse. Small faults, such as minor late speech power tagging, that preserve the integrity of the card can result in no to minor consequences. More severe abuses can lead to me just kicking the card.
Paraphrasing is ok AS LONG AS you're not misrepresenting evidence
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.
If there is something not on here that you have a question about, don't hesitate to ask before round.
Christopher Hammer Paradigm
I judge LD, PFD, Congress. Coaching for 13 years and participated in more of the interp stuff when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago so don't hold it against me.
I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency but don't necessarily need to vote on it if the resolution doesn't call for offense. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary. I frown upon evaluating specific cards as RFD because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time. I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA. In PFD, you should prefer using weighing mechanisms for your actual case instead of frontlining responses to your opponent. Students who use "kick the case and focus on responses" in PFD should probably just switch to LD or CX if they want to debate long-term. For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at 30 and deduct from there.
Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber. At TFA, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading. 6's are very rare for me. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks. Another thing to consider for Congress is your role of politicking. I think Congress should be treated as a competition in which the participants are able to speak on either side of legislation without regard to what other competitors are able to/going to do. That means you can "steal" a speech from someone who was waiting their turn as part of the round, and I won't rank you down if you do a good job.
World Schools: I'm new to it but I tend to treat it sort of like my speaker points for PFD and LD. I start everyone out high and then work my way down. I'm less attentive about POI's because I'm usually listening/writing, so I don't mind if you're trying more than 10 times to request them.
Ed Haskin Paradigm
I did oratory and LD debate in high school and judged while in college.
Grapevine is my first debate in years, but I have been using learned techniques in the real world. I am in risk management and have made arguments for multi-million dollar projects and learned what works based on the situation.
I like logic and reason and speaking fast does nothing for me. If you are speaking to a CEO you have to be able to make your points so they can quickly understand. In other words, you have to know your audience. Don't be rude and practice good manners, we are all here to learn and have fun.
Nick Hernandez Paradigm
Ravi Kanamangala Paradigm
Conrad Krueger Paradigm
Waaaaaaaassup. Tech > Truth
Add me to the email chain (if there is one): firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated for Plano West. I was lowkey pretty dookie but I competed a good amount on the national circuit, broke @ Texas state my junior and senior year, and qualled to the TOC my senior year in pf. I also have a bit of ld experience.
I’m not a perfect judge but I like to think of myself as flow and tab. Run anything you want as long as it has explicit warranting except for: death or oppression good, 30 speaks theory, rejoinder bad, evaluate debate after x speech. Here is how I will eval every round: I ask what is the top layer and who is winning it?
For PF: defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is responded to. But needs to extend turns.
For LD: (check quick prefs)
Defaults (you can change ANY of these): presumption and permissibility negate. No RVIs and eval with competing interps on Theory
If you are confused about anything I wrote here please don’t hesitate to ask me before the round or email me questions! Also, I am just getting out of high school so I’m going to be blatantly honest. I haven’t fully transformed from being a competitor to understanding how to accurately judge rounds. So honestly, treat me as flay but err towards flow. I will do my best to evaluate the debate solely on what is on my flow.
1] I’ll try to be as tab as possible, i.e. I will evaluate any argument as long it is warranted
Please refrain from making any of these arguments or you won’t like the decision on the ballot: oppression good, death good, 30 speaker points theory, burden of rejoinder bad, evaluate the debate after [x] speech. If you are confused as to why any of these arguments are bad pls speak to me and I’d be happy to start a dialogue.
2] pls weigh and extend arguments. Every extension you make must have warranting. My threshold for this is relatively high.
3] HERE IS HOW I EVALUATE EVERY SINGLE ROUND: 1] Which impact/layer is the most important in the round? 2] Who is winning offense under it? If you are winning offense under the most important layer whether that is on ur case or not. You have just won the round.
4] speed is fine but if you’re gonna go policy fast pls send a speech doc so I can get all ur args down. Err on the side of going as slow as you can while spreading AND ENUNCIATE bc there is a greater chance I will miss something the faster you talk. I'll yell "clear" 3x before I just stop flowing.
5] Judge grilling and post rounding for educational purposes is good. Just know that I will not change my ballot after the round is over and if your questions turn into hateful bashing towards me or your opponents, I will happily tank your speaks.
6] Have fun dammit.
This isn’t seen much in pf but I am 100% fine with progressive arguments such as Kritiks, theory, CPs, alternative frameworks, etc. If ur curious to see any of the arguments I ran in pf, here: https://pf.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Plano_West_KR
But feel free to go way more progressive. Read Baudrillard. idc.
Defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is responded to, i.e. first summary does not need to extend conceded defense but should extend turns. Second summary gots to extend everything.
Second rebuttal should frontline everything.
Defaults in pf (feel free to change any of these): Absent framework, I default to cost/benefit analysis or util. Presumption flows neg (you can even go for arguments like presumption flows first speaking team or that it affirms, I think there are legit args to be made there). No RVIs, eval w/ competing interps for theory.
I am definitely willing to hear just about any argument but all that I ask is that you explicitly warrant your arguments. Below is a list of quick preferences I have in evaluating arguments in order of familiarity and what I tend to enjoy in rounds, but just because phil is at the bottom doesn’t mean “crap def not reading Kant in front of this guy,” I will 100% listen and evaluate it just err more on the side of explanation. TL;DR: Read any arg you want, just err more on the side of explanation the lower you go on my pref list.
K (super nuanced): 2
Also PLEASE go ahead and run frivolous arguments, debate has an entertainment aspect too, and y’all have the burden of rejoinder. So, if you concede shoe theory and they give good prereq analysis, then I’ll 110% vote on it. But I will also vote on arguments like "frivolous arguments are bad" if it is well developed enough.
Defaults in LD (feel free to change ANY these): Presumption and Permissibility negates (not 100% familiar with arguments that trigger permissibility so just err towards explanation). No RVIs on T or theory, eval w/ competing interps. There is a bunch of things I’ll prob need to spec defaults for in LD, so ask me before the round if you got any questions.
Speaks for both events:
I’ll give a speak boost for the following scenarios:
- do a spin before you read a turn (only have to do this once)
- The more nuanced and entertaining cases will be rewarded.
- make me laugh. I have a terrible sense of humor so pls go for it.
- Any risky strategic decisions (kicking case, going for presumption, etc.). This is mostly for pf cuz ld does this stuff almost every other round. But don’t be dumb about it. If you kick case and that was just a really bad move, you’ll prob lose with lower speaks.
- Straight Impact turning Ks. Not racism good but cap good, securitization good, etc. Everyone hesitates to show conservatism in the debate space, which is a bit disappointing.
30 – you should prob be in late elims
29 – you’ll prob break
28 – you got a decent shot at breaking
27 – you kinda got some work to do
26 – you got some work to do
25 or lower – you messed up bad buddy. Real bad.
ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PLS ASK BEFORE THE ROUND!! Good luck! I will disclose after round unless it is an extremely close round.
Arsh Ladhani Paradigm
Debated for 4 years for Colleyville heritage. 2 years Cx, 2 years Ld.
I used to more of a K debater but weaker on phil debate, but I will listen to it, just make sure to explain it thoroughly
Please do not shake my hand after the round.
Email chains: email@example.com
Angella Lewallen 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.
Mindy McClure Paradigm
Noah Ogata Paradigm
Tabula rasa, please talk about offense after constructive
I want speech docs if you spread
I'll vote off of anything that is extended
Bring a picture of Viswajith Rajagopalan to round for 30 speaks
Viswa Raj Paradigm
How to win my ballot
I'll make this short. Collapse, extend and weigh.
Tech over truth. Although 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 and summary. Voters for final focus is fine. If you're doing something wack signpost por favor.
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.
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. Please don't make me intervene I really don't want to :(
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.
For the love of god weigh. If the round is close weighing will decide which way my ballot is going. If you don't weigh I will be very sad and disappointed :(. Don't make me sad and disappointed. Also meta-weigh if necessary (i.e. explain why I should prefer your weighing over theirs.)
Good extensions matter to me. If it's not extended well and properly I'm not flowing it. Extend the argument WITH IT'S WARRANT. Having evidence to back it up is pretty cool too. (Pls have evidence)
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. Your 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 line by line summary and voter final focus. please c o l l a p s e :)
I won't vote on anything if it's not in both of these speeches. || <- these lines are parallel. Make your summary and FF like these lines. :D
I can flow pretty well, but don't spread. If you speak at ridiculous levels I might miss the argument. If I'm just staring at you and not flowing, it probably means you're speaking at ridiculous levels.
Generally, 27-30 unless you say something blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
Bring a picture of Noah Ogata to round and I'll give you +1 speaks
I'll also give you +.5 speaks for every printed picture of a teenage mutant ninja turtle you bring to me (+2 for all the turtles)
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!
Ty jason zhang
Ram Ramdattan Paradigm
Shishir Waghgray Paradigm
Email Chain-- firstname.lastname@example.org
About Me: [Plano West '20]
I have been competing in LD for Plano West for 4 years on the TFA circuit and have a decent amount of experience on the national circuit as well. I strive to be as tabula rasa as possible in my judging philosophy. Below you will find more specific information...please feel free to ask any questions before the round as you see fit.
LARP (Plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, etc.) - 1
T & Theory - 1 or 2
K/K Affs - 2
Non-Topical/Performance - 3
Tricks - 4/Strike
*Note: I am familiar with all of these arguments-- this scale simply reflects the arguments I find most interesting, vs. those that put me to sleep (i.e. the bigger the number, the more bored I'll be judging the round.)
Tech > Truth
Stuff I Like:
-Weighing: WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH! Do it well and do it frequently. Have weighing mechanisms that make sense within the context of the round. Generally, this is what separates some of the really good debates observed throughout my career vs the really poor ones.
-Warrants: Be sure to provide clear and concise warrants as to why something is true and why I should be voting off of it.
-Signposting: saying where you are on the flow clearly
-Strategic Collapsing: Again, quality over quantity of arguments here. Rather than trying to win off every single argument, pick the few that are the most strategic in round and go for those. Additionally, tell me why those are the most important and why I should vote off of them.
-Framework: Whether this is an ROB, traditional V/C, or something else, good framework debate is something I enjoy.
-I generally tend to vote off of substantive offense...this is the best way to get to my ballot
Spreading is generally fine with me, but make sure that if you're going to spread, that it is clear. I'll say "clear" once before I start docking speaker points. You might want to slow down a little on analytics, taglines, theory interps, and plan texts just to make sure I don't miss anything.
-Doesn't really matter what this will be, whether it is a value/criterion, ROB, or something else. It should be well explained and extended in the 1AR/2NR. Additionally, your weighing mechanisms should be clearly delineated and filtered through the lens of a framework if you're running a stock case, critical position, or ideally most LARP positions.
Post-Round: I will end up disclosing my decision at the end of the round, and am open to any questions/concerns about the RFD.
*In general, run whatever you want--I'll vote on most things as long as the debate is done well*
Traditional/Lay Stuff: I really like good framework debate in this regard and encourage you to come up with creative substance matter in terms of positions and arguments rather than just reading the same old stock case that I've been hearing for months at a time on any given topic.
LARP: I really like this debate style, and it is what I have read upwards of 80% of the time throughout my own debate career. With that being said, there are a couple pointers. Try to be creative here as there is so much topic ground for you to cover. I'd like to see good comparison of evidence in rounds as well as good weighing. These make for interesting debates.
1.) Plans: Must have a clear representation of what the world looks like and how it ties in with framing mechanisms. Absent explicit framing, I default to a basic util/policymaking FW. Having good warrants and weighing mechanisms are crucial here.
2.) CP/PIC: Must include some sort of solvency evidence and net benefits to the advocacy for which you are reading.
3.) DA: Uniqueness evidence, good link chain, and tangible impacts are crucial to a good DA. Bad link chains or outlandish impacts are unlikely to get my ballot.
K: Though I didn't read Ks all too often in my debate career, I definitely understand them and will vote off of them. I'm decently familiar with most of the commonly read authors including Baudrillard, Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Agamben, Tuck & Yang...
-Things I HATE: Backfile K Debate, Vague/generic links to the aff, unclear explanation of what the alt looks like.
-Things I want to see: Clear Link, Specific/tangible explanation of Alt, ROB provided as an overarching portion of the K. Additionally, show me that you understand the position you are reading! All too often, debaters read a K and have no clue what they are talking about or saying. If you can show me that you really understand the critical literature & warrants behind what you're saying, I'll give you +1 speaks.
-I like seeing good K debates. I think understanding your critical position and clearly being able to articulate it separates good debaters from unskilled hacks.
Defaults: Competing Interps/No RVI/Education > Fairness/T > Theory/Meta Theory > Theory.
-In general, there needs to be a clear abuse story for me to vote off theory. Otherwise, I'll end up making theory a wash and voting off substance. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory as I think it detracts from more substantive debates.
-I think disclosure is a good norm and am inclined to buy Disclosure Theory. With that being said, I'm far more sympathetic to small schools as I think they're at a strategic disadvantage to big school prepouts and the like.
-No default on DTD vs. DTA... I think that is for you to articulate to me which one I should go forward with.
Performance & Non-T Affs: Go for it, although I'm far more inclined to buy Topicality if it is read against these positions.
Tricks: Yuck! -- steer clear of these. I think these are just a bad norm in general in the debate community since most people that read these do it to weasel their way out of the actual debate and will err on the side of not voting for them. Although, if it is completely mishandled by the opponent (with the exception being novices), I'll vote on it but drop your speaks to the floor.
26-30-- 26= Poor | 30=exceptional. Most average debaters will fall around 28 speaks. Unclear speaking will result in docked speaker points.
*On rare occasions, you might receive a 25 for a couple reasons.
1.) Being unnecessarily rude to your opponent.
2.) Bad Evidence Ethics-- if you manipulate evidence, misrepresent an author's words, engage in EXTREME power tagging, clip cards, etc., and either your opponent points it out or I catch you doing this, you will receive a non-negotiable L/25.
Brandon Wang Paradigm
I graduated from Plano West in 2020, and I competed in PF for 4 years on the local and national circuits. I'm your typical flow judge, but debate your regular style and I'll adapt to you.
Things I don't tolerate:
- Racism/sexism/genocide good etc. arguments.
- Miscut or badly paraphrased evidence. Cut cards are highly preferred. If you take more than 1 minute to pull up evidence your speaks will quickly start dropping.
- Running friv theory against novice/newer debaters.
- Being a total jerk to your opponents.
- Fine with speed. If you go 300+ wpm or are debating online please send a speech doc.
- Will only vote for arguments that have clear link and impact extensions in both summary and FF.
- Please weigh as much as possible. No new weighing in 2nd final focus though.
- 2nd rebuttal has to frontline turns or they count as dropped.
- 1st summary does not have to extend defense unless it's a) frontlined in 2nd rebuttal or b) turns if you want them to be an offensive voting issue.
- I don't like teams that read multiple long DAs/independent overviews in 2nd rebuttal. I'm receptive to teams that point out abuse with theory.
- I'm fine with theory and K's. Signpost clearly and for Ks give a legitimate link and alt, preferably with minimal jargon. Do not read a page of tricks.
- Speaks are usually in the 27-30 range. Extra points for humor.
Ask me if you have any other questions. Feel free to politely postround me.
Allen Wu Paradigm
Debate is a game, but the way in which we conduct it is also important.
History in Forensics
I used to compete for Vines/Plano Senior High School in LD, PF, FX, DX, OO, INFO. I am currently on the UT Debate Team.
Paradigm - LD, CX
I will vote for anything presented in the round - K, T, Theory, etc. Go as fast as you want, and I will flow accordingly. Please send me ALL speech docs throughout the round. I mainly did policy LD in HS, but I still dabbled in Aff K debates.
Paradigm - PF, WS
Consider me lay.
My email: email@example.com
Yizhen Zhen Paradigm
I am lay. Speak very slowly please, me English es no bueno. :'( å“Žå‘€
æŠ€æœ¯æ€§è¾©è®º > çœŸç†
ä¸è¦è¯¯è§£æˆ–è¯¯åˆ‡è¯æ®. è¾©è§£æ‰€æœ‰è®ºç‚¹. è¯·æ¯”è¾ƒè®ºç‚¹ aka åˆ«å€¾å€’å¡. ç¬¬äºŒåé©³åº”è¯¥åº”å¯¹ç¬¬ä¸€ä¸ª. é˜²å®ˆåž‹è®ºç‚¹ä¸ç²˜.
Si tiene algún problema, pregúnteme antes de la ronda en hebreo. ¡Gracias y diviértete!