Plano West Wolf Classic

2018 — Plano, TX, TX/US

Nihar Annam Paradigm

8 rounds

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.

Congress:

- 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.

More specifically:
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

8 rounds

Not Submitted

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

Not Submitted

Manoj Donthineni Paradigm

Not Submitted

Pranay Gundam Paradigm

8 rounds

PF:

Myself:

I have debated regularly on the North Texas circuit for 4 years and consider myself fairly tab/flow/however you want to say it.

Round Stuff:

Framing:

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.

Speech Strategy:

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.

Theory:

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.

Speaks:

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.

Evidence:

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

Speed:

I am fine with speed, although spreading will probably lend towards me missing stuff (that is probably a bad thing for you).

LD:

I never did LD, but since you might have me as you're judge here is so information about me.

K's

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.

Policy Stuff:

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.

Theory/T

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.

Spreading

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 robopokemmon@gmail.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.

I am big picture for LD/PFD.  I try to keep a tidy flow.  I like solvency impacts.  I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout.  I dislike spreading as it's not necessary for the most part.  I frown upon outweighing cards because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time.  I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA.  For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at 30 and deduct from there.

Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber.  At TFA, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading.  I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks.

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

nickhernandzz@gmail.com

2yrs VCX 1yr PFD experience in high school. Judging for two years since graduating Colleyville in 2016

2NR Frontlining is fine.

I prefer a happy medium between spreading and normal speaking speed.

Underviews are important, know when you are about to run out of time and wrap up accordingly.

Like teams that aren't afraid to kick their arguments and put all of their effort towards what they have the best chance to win with.

Ravi Kanamangala Paradigm

Not Submitted

Conrad Krueger Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

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: arsh.ladhani@gmail.com

Angella Lewallen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tom McCaffrey Paradigm

Tom McCaffrey

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

Not Submitted

Noah Ogata Paradigm

8 rounds

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

8 rounds

General

Tech over truth, but treat me like I'm a lay judge. I don't like teams that just card dump on their opponents hoping to win the round on sheer quantity of arguments alone. If you collapse on a good argument and warrant it well, I'm much more compelled to vote for you over a team that just spoke quickly.

Organization

I prefer line by line rebuttals. If you choose to go with an unconventional order, then please signpost! If I can't follow you, I'll be very sad.

Strategy

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defense, but definitely offense - this means turns. I think it's extremely abusive to not respond to a turn that was placed on you in first rebuttal until second summary. If you choose not to respond to turns in your rebuttal, it doesn't mean it's an instant vote down, but your chances of winning the round are slim :((. Defense in first summary sticks unless the other team unstuck it in second rebuttal.

Framework

Some kind of framing at some point in the round is definitely preferred because it'll help me decide what to evaluate better. That being said, if no explicit framework is agreed upon, I'll default to a cost-benefit analysis. This may or may not be good for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Crossfire

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.

Weighing

Please weigh your arguments in any way you choose. I'll try not to intervene but I'll be forced to if no one weighs and there's offense on both sides. You also have to weigh your weighing, i.e, tell me why your weighing mechanisms are better than your opponents.

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.

Summary/FF

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. Parallelism is good!

Speed

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.

Speaks

Generally 28-30 unless you say something blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Progressive Debate

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!

Ram Ramdattan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shishir Waghgray Paradigm

8 rounds

LD Paradigm:

Speed:

-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.

Framing:

-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.

Case Structures:

-Progressive case structures (e.g. Counterplans, Disads, and Kritiks) are fine with me. I am familiar with these case structures and have no problems with them. Traditional V/C is also fine. Theory should only be applicable if there is in-round abuse.

General & Speaker Points:

26-30-- 26= Poor | 30=exceptional. Most average debaters will fall around 28 speaks. Unclear speaking will result in docked speaker points.

-I generally tend to vote off of substantive offense...this is the best way to get to my ballot.

CX Paradigm:

Not too familiar with the structure of CX, as LD is my primary event, but spreading and progressive case structures should be fine. Refer to my LD paradigm for more information.

Brandon Wang Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Allen Wu Paradigm

8 rounds

Debate is not a game. Debate is a lifestyle. Be nice.

Speed:

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.

Speech Docs:

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.

Specific Arguments

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

8 rounds

I am lay. Speak very slowly please, my English is not good. :'(

Tech > Truth

Don't misconstrue evi. Warrant all arguments. Weigh in summary. 2nd Rebuttal should a2 1st. Defense is not sticky.