Plano West Wolf Classic
2018 — Plano, TX, TX/US
Nihar Annam Paradigm
i really really really really really like warrants.
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.
Absent explicit framing I will default to a cost-benefit analysis.
Absent anything in general (warrant, impact, etc.), I will either not consider the argument or make one up for you - this happens if both side's offense is lacking and because don't feel comfortable presuming one side or the other. Either way, this is bad for you.
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 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.
Defaults: Theory comes before case (this includes k's), reasonability, no RVI's.
Condo - If you drop an advocacy a turn is still a turn. I will vote on Condo arguments about reading de-link to the case to get out of turns.
Paraphrasing - I think this is a great one, especially because it's PF specific.
Disclosure - ehhh, I'd vote on it if it's debated well.
NIB's - NIB's bad theory is something I am inclined to buy. I think in PF it is truly abuse, especially in the second rebuttal.
I view T very similar to the way I view theory. Don't run a non-topic case if you don't believe in it.
I 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 there are a couple of things that you can do that I like, and a couple of things I don't:
+0.5 speaks: standing up during grand cross
+0.5 speaks: I think something you say is funny
+0.5 speaks: if you talk as slow as Druv Dhuper (+1 point if your efficiency is as good as Jerry Yang's)
+0.5 speaks all round: if I think all the crossfires are productive/spicy
+0.5 speaks: if you are a competent team that doesn't read off of laptops - +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)
+0.5 - 1 speaks (based on how I'm feeling on a given day): if you disclose cases on PF Wiki
-1 speak: If you call defensive arguments as turns or offense (unless you pull a Raine Lin)
-3 speaks: card in case is not cut as per NSDA rules (I will also kick the card)
-2 speaks: any card read is overly misconstrued (I understand that power tagging is a thing so, and I'll accept that to an extent)
-3 speaks: When a fairly competent team reads theory against novices (I'll still vote on theory though)
-1 to 5 speaks: evidence takes too long to be pulled up / isn't kicked if you don't have it
-0.5: dates aren't read (it's ok if you forget it for a card but if you want to extend it the date has to be read sometime early on in the round)
-0.5 speaks: going for too much
-5 speaks: if you are rude
I like power moves that aren't rude
Unstrategic choices won't lower your speaks, it'll lose you the round.
Perfect fluency will get you a 29, the other point comes from bonuses and whether or not the words coming out of your mouth makes sense.
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 fine with speed, although spreading will probably lend towards me missing stuff (that is probably a bad thing for you).
I never did LD, but since you might have me as you're judge here is so information about me.
I have a very basic knowledge of how K debate works. Anything overly technical or based on LD norms will have to be explained to me.
People have told me that PF is like the case debate in policy, so I think I should be fine dealing with Policy Affs, DA's, and CP. I understand how stock issues work, but again anything super technical or based on LD norms will have to be explained.
Defaults: Theory comes before case (this includes k's), reasonability, no RVI's.
You will probably have to do a lot of analysis on the theory debate for me to vote on it. I don't really have an idea of what is abusive in LD since I'm unfamiliar with the speech times, and unaware of norms.
I am not trained to follow spreading, but I will try my best. I will say clear if you're going to fast. If you are going to spread please email the speech doc to firstname.lastname@example.org. If you're clear on analytics and tags I'm okay if you spread the card so long as you email me the evidence.
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 impacts. 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
You may frontline your 2NR.
Ravi Kanamangala Paradigm
Conrad Krueger Paradigm
Debate is a game. Tech > Truth.
Debater for Plano West. 2x State qualifier in PF, alt to nats in LD sophomore year, competing on the national circuit. In other words, I'm aight. Barely.
1] I'll evaluate any argument you throw at me as long as it is a] warranted b] not morally reprehensible (If you are I'll give you the L20).
2] If you intend on spreading that is cool, but it would be extremely beneficial if you send me (and probably your opponent) speech docs so I can flow every argument you give and also make sure the warranting is down on my flow. I'd ask that you SLIGHTLY slowdown on tag lines, analytics and signposting.
3] Don't be rude. But also don't be afraid to show a little sass in rounds (could actually boost speaks). My facial expressions will cue you as to if you are crossing the line between being sassy and being rude. If you are just a horrible person throughout the entire debate you won't be receiving anything higher than a 26.
4] WEIGH AND EXTEND ARGUMENTS!!! OTHERWISE, I WILL NOT EVALUATE!!!
5] Have fun. THIS IS MANDATORY!
Love critical theory <3 ESPECIALLY PERFORMANCE DEBATE. I am familiar with a lot of philosophers utilized in debate (Bostrom, Wilderson, DnG, Baudrillard, and a bunch more I just don't feel like typing them all out). One problem tho. While I do know a lot about these philosphers I don't know the hyper hyperspecific nuances of each philosopher. So if the debate comes down to X say this vs X says that, sorry bud I prob can't resolve it and will come down to me interpreting evidence. Which is not something you want me to do bc I'm straight ass at interpreting text, my SAT reading score can vouch for me there.
For those who are LARP debaters, don't worry I LOVE policy vs critical lit rounds. And I can be very convinced that policymaking is just a more morally coherent thing since I've been in pf for almost the last 2 yrs.
DA, CPs, PICs, Ks, T, Theory, crit affs are all good. I am perfectly fine if you run frivolous args, debate is about entertainment too. But I will also evaluate theory against things like pics, condo, frivolous debate, etc.
Once again I'll evaluate any argument including offs. PF is relatively straightforward but if you have any questions ask me.
I think the only thing I have to really clarify is that in first summary defense is sticky. you don't have to extend every response on your opponent's flow, only terminal defense that is crucial to my evaluation and turns, other responses can be extended into ff if need.
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
Allen Wu Paradigm
Debate is not a game. Debate is a lifestyle. Be nice.
I am comfortable with flowing at any speed, just make sure to send me the speech doc to verify evidence if needed. I will not look at the speech doc in round unless you go astronomically fast.
Organize them during your own prep time. Otherwise I will think that you are buying time for yourself and will dock speaks accordingly. This kind of abuse happens too often. I will only make exceptions to the people who have their computers die in the middle of the round.
K vs. T
Engage in the debate and don't be offensive. I will vote T if the K is atrocious e.g. "Vote for Robert Chen because the world revolves Robert Chen." The world does not revolve around Robert Chen. Even though Robert Chen might be a great debater, try to promote some form of discussion instead of making it side biased. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate cases that reject the parameter of the resolution or the resolution entirely, it just means that you should always leave the opponent SOME path to the ballot.
Views on Political Arguments:
I don't identify myself with any political party, so don't run deep liberal/conservatives narratives on me. This is justified because:
a. According to the most recent Gallup Poll (10/10/18) 39% of Americans are independent
b. In the real world debaters will need to appeal to both sides of the aisle in order to address issues. Disregarding the majority of the audience and targeting fringe voters doesn't make the world a better place
Views on Theory
I will only evaluate theory if you can clearly paint the abuse story.
Public Forum + World Schools Debate
Hah! Nothing above applies to you!
Public Forum is like the name implies, for the public. I will of course flow your arguments, but I will not be voting off of extensions if you do not weigh them. Weigh an argument that you extended for me and I will give you the ballot, no matter how ridiculous that argument actually is.
World Schools Debate is similar to public forum, however don't be absolutely rude when you are trying to make a point or when you are asking questions.
Yizhen Zhen Paradigm
I am lay. Speak very slowly please, me English es no bueno. :'( 哎呀
技术性辩论 > 真理
不要误解或误切证据. 辩解所有论点. 请比较论点 aka 别倾倒卡. 第二反驳应该应对第一个. 防守型论点不粘.
Si tiene algún problema, pregúnteme antes de la ronda en hebreo. ¡Gracias y diviértete!