Plano West Wolf Classic
2018 — Plano, TX, TX/US
Umar Abdul-Qadir Paradigm
I'm attending UT Dallas, graduating in 2022. Ideally. I graduated from Plano West in 2018 and competed in my Junior and Senior years in PF and IX. I approve of wearing fedoras in round.
I'm not the picky type, so I'll just be going over some general things.
Treat me like a more lay judge, meaning you will need to explain things as if I have never been anywhere near debate in my life, and will need to be clear. Spreading should be minimal as if I can't understand, I will not be able flow it, and that certainly won't be helping your case. With that in mind, be loud as well. That tends to help with clarity.
Speaks: I'll be lenient for the most part, so expect high points, within the 28-30 range. Unless you're being uncivil, in which case, expect something lower.
As for things within the round itself, the usual will apply. Have warrants, don't fire off as many cards as you can without purpose, have warrants again and make sure you weigh your arguments.
Most importantly, BE CIVIL. Especially in crossfire, or you'll lose speaker points and potentially more.
Direct me to the exit, because I probably wandered in by accident and am definitely lost and in the wrong room.
Raheela Ahsan Paradigm
John Archolecas Paradigm
Gunjan Bhattarai Paradigm
Kristi Braley Paradigm
I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it. I like to hear authors' credentials the first time it's presented (per TFA rules of evidence) and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round. Weigh impacts and pull through framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater from a traditional circuit and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.
Tamara Brooks Paradigm
No preferences except for speed, speakers must be clear and concise.
Farooq Buvvaji Paradigm
PATRICIA CATO-YOUNG Paradigm
Have an argument you can defend. Not just with empirical evidence, but with your listening skills. Throwing every argument up against the wall and hoping something sticks will not work or get me to vote for you. However, clear, concise voters that outweigh your opponent's, will.
Finally, be respectful to each other. This is a learning experience for all involved. Knowledge with grace is much more impressive than power.
Kun Chang Paradigm
#1 dad judge on the circuit
I have knowledge about hot topics, but I haven't judged many debate rounds.
Kris Compton Paradigm
Nate Conoly Paradigm
**3min summary update** You should still collapse in summary. The extra minute should not go towards you trying to cover everything on the flow. The extra minute should go towards cleaner extensions, more in-depth analysis, more frontlining on the argument you collapse to, and weighing/impact calc.
-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.
-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.
-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.
-I think 2nd speaking team's rebuttal needs to address all offense from the 1st speaking team. This includes opponents case and turns put on their case.
-In terms of overviews, please do not be abusive. I don't like it when a team throws a nib on their opponent. I will reduce speaker points for this tactic. It's fine to use an overview for something that covers their entire case, not to just introduce a new argument that acts just like a contention from case.
-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.
-For speaking, I do not care at all about eye contact. I do not care if you sway, etc. I will not be looking at you during speeches, as I am looking down at my flow most of the time. Project your voice and be clear. Again do not spread.
-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.
1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.
2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.
3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.
a) What do you like to see in the round? A debate
b) What do I have to do to get a 30? Start by not asking me how to get a 30. I rarely, if ever, do I give a 30. I typically start with a 29 and deduct for rudeness, evidence ethics problems, general speaking, etc and goes up for good extensions, good strategy decisions, etc.
Please don't spread. Breathing is a good thing. Things I am fine with: counterplans, disads, theory only when your opponent is abusive, FW debates. Things I am less likely to go for: skep, K's, frivolous theory, etc. I prefer the round to be about the actual resolution. Write my ballot for me, if you tell me how to view the round and how to prioritize arguments the earlier the better. Again, I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision. Also, you can read the PF blip above (some of it still applies to LD).
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.
Donald Cox Paradigm
Govinda Dads Paradigm
Cara Day Paradigm
*Updated for April 2019*
I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit and have coached there for over 2 years. In high school I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.
-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.
*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc. Making arguments that impact turn any type of oppression will get you an L20.
-Speed: Go as fast as you want- I can pretty much catch most things. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing and drop your speaks. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.
-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. Rounds with no offense are horrible to judge. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact or you don't get access to the argument.
-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting. Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.
-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important
-CX is binding
- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.
-Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or you click send on the email.
-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech.
-You can do anything you want -- don't care if it's sketchy (other than miscut evidence) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol
-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.
- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.
I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: be funny, go for the right things in later speeches, speak clearly, make CX interesting. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out one). I give speaks more on strategy than on actual speaking skills, especially in LD.
I much prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus.
My thoughts on defense: The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus (obvi besides offense) is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate risk of offense claims.
First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).
2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).
Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.
Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF.
I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below.
You get a 1:30 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.
Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.
If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.
Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.
My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)
Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1
Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1
Ideal FWs: 1
Non-T Affs: 5
Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs. I think DA turns the AC args are some of my favorite to vote on. Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.
FW: I'm a philosophy major and plan on getting a philosophy PhD, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc
Theory/T: I tend to default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I also love hearing drop the arg> drop the debater arguments and will definitely go for them if well-warranted. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.
If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.
Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.
Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.
DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.
Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!
If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.
The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.
Or FB message me with questions
Lauren Dillard Paradigm
1. Do not spread.
2. Be nice.
Jason Elgersma Paradigm
7/10 speed MAX
I'm not going to buy that something's abusive just because you say it's abusive. Theory and kritiks are alright as long as they're clearly identified and signposted.
I'm a fan of debaters who can be confident without being cocky, aggressive without being mean, and above all, are good sports who respect the decorum that defines debate.
I'm not a fan of debaters who don't do up their top button and tighten their tie when the round starts.
Yuval Eliezer Paradigm
Eric Freeman Paradigm
1. Quality over quantity
2. Frame clearly
3. Respect your opponent
4. Prioritize your time
5. Not all arguments are equal
6. Not all evidence is equal
7. Make your case clearly
8. Make my vote easy
Anson Fung Paradigm
Good debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage.
Evidence calls should not take a significant amount of time. As such, if you are unable to find the evidence requested by your opponent within 30 seconds of the evidence call, you will run prep time.
Debate is a game. Tech > truth.
Any form of argumentation is fine as long as it is warranted and you can clearly explain it. This includes theory, T, plans, and counterplans. However, I am not familiar with critical arguments, so run Ks at your peril.
I evaluate rounds the way you tell me to. That means the onus is on you to extend links, impacts, and do clear comparative weighing.
I prefer 2nd speaking team responses to be made in 2nd rebuttal. My threshold for new argumentation in 2nd summary is high.
Speaks are off strategy. I just ask that you're clear and understandable. I will be very impressed if you can give a speech while also doing the Golimar Video Song dance From Donga Movie.
CX isn't binding. Tag team CX is fine with me.
You are strongly encouraged disclose if your team has a page on the NDCA PF wiki. You are also strongly encouraged to send me an email chain of your constructive and rebuttal prior to the start of each speech. I will add +1 speaks for disclosure and +0.1 speaks for email chain. sendspeechdochere [at] gmail [dot] com
If you chose to neither disclose nor email chain I may request that you show me the full PDFs of all evidence relevant to my decision at the end of the round.
My threshold for theory is low. For disclosure theory, I'll entertain a shell even if offers to email have been made prior to round. However, if you do run theory, I will hold you to a high standard of technical proficiency.
When it comes to theory, I default to the following absent arguments to do otherwise:
1. Theory is a question of competing interpretations
2. Responding to and being ahead on theory does not automatically constitute a RVI
3. Theory has no implication
4. Topicality is evaluated prior to theory
Emily Gogle Paradigm
Mohit Gupta Paradigm
Rania Hammad Paradigm
Elias Hishmeh Paradigm
Samuel Holsomback Paradigm
Be civil with your opponents, I'm going to be irritated if you're hostile to each other the entire time.
Lincoln Douglas Paradigms:
I'd prefer for each side to focus on their value and criterion as the two most important things in the round. Argue as to why yours is better, if you list it off and ignore it, and the other extends, you'll be in a bad place.
Be sure to extend. I probably can't remember everything you say, especially if you're going progressive. A more clear and concise case is more likely to win over one I have to look for arguments.
Traditional or Progressive is fine, just make sure your arguments are coherent. If you can't spread, don't spread.
I'm more likely to take evidence at hand than just pure argument. If a person has evidence against what you're saying and you can't back it up, they're going to come out on top.
Public Forum Debate Paradigms:
Public forum debate is designed to where the judge can be lay. This means I'd prefer you not spread in the round.
Under the PFD rules, plans and counter-plans aren't allowed. Don't run them.
I did PFD in high school and made it to state, so I'm likely to understand the majority of arguments and frameworks you run.
Uphold your framework and ATTACK the others. If a team's framework goes untouched and you don't have a framework then they'll win. If you both have frameworks and you both ignore them then I'm just going to ignore the frameworks. Extend as much as you can, use the speeches what they're meant for: Summary for summary of arguments, rebuttal for rebuttal, etc.
I don't care if you stand or sit.
Marghi Jani 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.
Aarti Kapoor Paradigm
Mishan Kara Paradigm
Poornima Kashyap Paradigm
Young Kim Paradigm
I've debated in various forms of debate, including LD, PDF, Congress as well as other IEs, such as Extemp for 4 years in Plano under Cheryl Potts in my high school career. Though I have not done LD in college, I am confident that I know a good round when I see one, since I've debated in both good and bad rounds throughout my 4 years.
The thing that will be the most important for me is having a fair and ethical round that is also high quality.
When I said fair and ethical, I mean both to your opponent and me, but also to the people you're using as sources for your cases.
This means that I'll be looking out for any violation of evidence ethics and that I'll be encouraging fair rounds, be it through flashing cases, slowing down speed, or any means to make sure that those in round are able to understand and communicate well with each other. I will not be calling for evidence, nor accept any evidence that wasn't properly shared after the round and will instead drop the warrant altogether and if I see any cards that were clipped, I'll be either deducting speaker points or I will straight up drop the warrant. Though if you indicate where the card was cut clearly to the opponent, I'll accept this.
I have read enough philosophy and relevant literature and I continue to read more and more throughout graduate school for me to have to see kids in high school think they can lie to me about what the source says. If I feel as though you are willfully misrepresenting a source, not due to misunderstanding of what the source says, I will give the round to the opponent. It is highly unethical to willfully misrepresent someone else's words, especially when you can find dozens of scholarly evidence that supports any reasonable claims.
Now let's get into common some issues:
❀ No theory is so good that I'd drop the entire debate based on it. I would buy that a theory would drop an argument, but not the whole debate
❀ Prove to me that there was abuse. If not, I can't really buy your T. Tell me because even though I probably know, it's still your job as a debater to communicate to me, your judge.
Speaking of T...
❀ It's not a good look to use this, really. It essentially boils down to "I had nothing better than evoke topicality," and while I'll buy it if you can prove to me that there was an abusive amount of straying from topicality either in your Rs or CX, I won't be buying RVIs just by themselves.
❀ Instead of RVIs, you could give me justified reasons not to buy the opponent's T (opponent's T works off of bigoted worldview, etc)
Speaking of RVIs...
❀ While I dislike "gotcha" debates, if there are absolutely no voters and clash, I will give the round to spikes.
❀ I would rather not have to do this and I will be deducting speaks from both debaters. One ought not use spikes to win and one ought have ways to deal with them (i.e. flowing).
❀ Don't abuse the fact that I love Ks. Your K has to make some sort of sense, and prove to me that the resolution fails the aspect you want to bring up in your Ks (i.e. I don't want to see asia-as-a-method in a topic about american voting rights).
❀ I welcome these. That being said, if I see the other side getting weird about this argument, I'll be heavily deducting speaks from the person being weird or I'll even be giving the round if the abuse is, by my standard, egregious enough.
❀ This is because a debate requires both parties to listen and speak to each other. This is a huge part of being fair to the other debater. I do not tolerate a speaking space where marginalized folks have to feel that they have to participate in debate that is harmful to them.
❀ If you're not sure about graphic/distressing contents, ask me and ask the opponent before the round. That's a part of being fair.
❀ That being said, don't abuse this. If I feel that you are, I'll be marking it down in RFD and it will greatly harm your case.
Extension and other matters:
❀ This is the part where you get to assume that I've either not been paying attention or don't know about the round. Explain all your extensions in the clearest way because that shows me that you know, as well as making it clear to the opponent. This promotes clash the best, from what I've competed and seen.
❀ Flex prep is fine but don't treat it like an extra round of CX and definitely don't stop CX early to add to your prep time.
❀ firstname.lastname@example.org is where you can send your cases if we decide to open an email chain.
❀ if we do open an email chain, I'll be paying attention to your cases during CX and CX only, as I feel that you should be able to present your case verbally regardless of whether I have the case open or not.
Speed is fine, however... don't abuse the fact that I am fine with speed. This means you should have a reason that you're speaking fast. When you spread, I expect to see a well-developed case, not a case that is designed so that the opponent has to play a game of whack-a-warrant. This means I expect to see extensions, multiple cards, the whole deal per argument you've made.
As far as speaker points go, I'll usually give no lower than 28 unless you are either really unprofessional, just atrocious, or have other notable issues. I rarely give 30s, as 30s are perfect speakers, which means no breaks in speech, no stuttering during CX, and other means for you to be "perfect."
❀ If I see clash, I'll reward speaks. Same is true for presentation of arguments that are good.
❀ I tend to be lenient toward those with accents that sometimes get hard to understand, but the accented speaker should also be aware when they are being hard to understand and be prepared to clarify or repeat themselves, even if it means losing time.
❀ I'll also be looking for signs of actual engagement with other debaters. Surest way for you to get lower than a 29 for me is if you don't flow.
Senthil Kumar Paradigm
James Lanoux Paradigm
Jonathan Lee Paradigm
Conflicts with Plano East Senior High School
I want to be on the email chain. --> email@example.com
(PFD paradigm below this btw, go there if im judging that)
DEBATE IS A GAME (although one based in reality). Run literally whatever. If ur cool and/or funny you might get high speaker points. The only rules to debate are the speech times. do not be rude lol
-For Policy, I default to consequentialism under saving the most number of lives ,competing interps, and Drop the argument.
-For LD, I default to Competing interps, no rvis, comparative worlds, no epistemic modesty (or epistemic certainty), drop the argument.
FLOWING: Slow down on Tags, Authors, Theory, spikes, things you REALLY want to me to know. I also flow CX.
L O N G Version
I did primarily LD at Plano East Senior High School and now do Policy for UT Austin.
LD Framework/Value&VC/normative ethical theory debate: PLEASE don't get into debates that resemble "Justice is a prereq to morality/morality is a prereq to justice." In my opinion, the value/value criterion structure isn't really the best way to understand/present ethical theories or whatever type of philosophy youre trying to run. So just focus on proving whatever normative ethical theory you're presenting is capital T true or just concede FW and win offence. Values really dont meant anything unless contextualized by some broader theory. That doesn't mean you cant have a value of something that isnt morality (or that you HAVE to propose a normative ethical theory as a framework, you could do something else in philosophy that isn't ethics (ontology db8s, epistemology claims etc), just dont be surprised if you lose the framework debate by extending that value without it being contextualized by some actual philosophy that youre reading. In other words, focus on your WHOLE FRAMEWORK position instead of extending a word that, by itself, means nothing to me.
LD Tricks: Go for them. Triggers should be in the 1AR, dont try to cheat out an impact in the 2AR. Slow down on these debates especially when going for analytics. I guess this is an appropriate time to say that you can run literally whatever, I don't have an aversion for any type of argument even if it is unpopular.
CPs: Winning 1 CP condo is an uphill battle for LD (less than 4 condo for CX) , but go for it you you think you can prove abuse. CPs should show me how they solve better or are holistically a better idea due to net benefits. Permutations of CPs are not separate advocacies. Advantage CPs are good. PICs, consult CPs, or are ok as long as they literally aren't the aff minus 1 inconsequential thing (AKA try to make it sound like a reasonable policy option). If the CP is probably "cheating" I'll vote on it for sure, but you might find that it won't take too much theory to take it out. IMO-Judge kick is probably a natural consequent of condo. What this means for you is that if nobody says anything about the round and the neg defends condo (aka most rounds)-i will judge kick for the neg.
DAs: I can be convinced on 100% no risk on a DA given sufficient defense on the link story. That being said, this is pretty difficult for me. However, a minuscule risk of DA that's been weighed well against a good advantage will function as background noise. Neg debaters should focus on making the DAs as specific to the aff as possible.
(ld) Epistemic Modesty/Epistemic certainty (Model Hedging/Moral Confidence): I default to Epistemic certainty/Moral Confidence. This basically means that fw is super important to determine which impacts are largest in the round. However, db8rs must still win that a course of action or squo is supporting their fw meaning that if an aff wins fw but concedes/loses sufficient case defense, i will vote negative as they lose their impact despite it being the biggest in round.
Topicality: I'll default to looking at T first unless you give me a reason not to. just explain why the aff is unreasonable within good limits. Procedural abuse is stronger for T than it is for theory.
(ld)Truth-testing: Truth-Testing does NOT mean that implementation is not a thing under it. That being said, Truth-testing can set up an affirmative burden that can exclude fiating a plan.
Theory: I default competing interps and will look towards the spirit of an interpretation rather than the actually text of the interp unless it's really badly written. In-round abuse makes your argument much better, but I understand that's not always possible. That being said, arguing for potential abuse will be much harder here than it is for T. Impact something to Fairness, educaiton, advocacy skills, or actual impacts to theory. Having the theory shell be DTD because X W/O an impact makes it hard for me to vote for the shell.
Framework: FW's a good argument, but becomes even a better argument when you focus on the efficacy of state action (or policy education) rather than just going for procedural fairness arguments. But this is just my opinion, go for whatever you think you are good at in the framework debate, all strategies will be viable under me. On TVA: these are amazing bc, w/o them, it makes it harder to vote on FW. They don't have to be run as CPs since all youre doing with FW is proving that the aff could have been topical to begin with and could have met the negs interp to resolve the standards under it. Aff responses to TVA should be DAs contextualized with the theory of power/critical literature/philosophy they are incorporating as well as indicting the solvency of a TVA in solving their impacts.
Ks: Please give me good explanations and O/Vs of how your changing the ballot and my decision for whatever type of pedagogy you're endorsing. While i might have read the lit, you need to make the argument in your own words. Dont make your ROTB/ROTJ imaccessible since it's basically just a FW claim and weighing mechanism. Permutations (whether your reading them against K on the NEG or as a K aff in a K v. K debate) should be very detailed and give me explanations of the benefits of them. I like philosophy and critical theory, so Kritiks are cool when they are done well.
Also affs probably get to weigh the plan against the k but if you believe that this is immoral/bad/not useful i could easily disregard the plan if you convince me to. Sufficient case defense makes it easier for me to do this against affs going for perms to the k.
Evidence Is Super Important. I read pretty much all the cards in a round: While the debate should be 100% what the debaters say, I will be reading all the evidence read in a round to ensure that there is no misreading of the arguments presented in front of me. Even if you think something says A, it may say B which could change entirely on how that argument flows in a round. In the same manner-read through your opponent's evidence and point out stuff to me (especially when generating a link story for a K in the 2NC/1NR).
Conceded Arguments are 100% true if the debater extends it well enough and impacts it. Don't expect me to buy new arguments that weren't in the 1AR in the 2AR or 2NR arguments that weren't in the block unless you can justify your opponent reading new arguments as well.
Arguments that sound like: "This is LD not policy," aren't arguments and probably won't be evaluated by me.
PF Debate paradigm
Run literally whatever, i'll vote on the flow. THAT BEING SAID, be careful when running "policy" positions given that you don't have much time to develop them and they weren't intended for the event. Don't overadapt to me if you aren't comfortable running these positions. I honestly do not mind a normal PF debate. If you do decide to go for policy positions, I'll hold you to the same standard I would in a typical round of policy.
Speaks: Given that PF is a "layman's debate," focusing on rhetorical skills, I will base speaks of a combination of strategy and speaking skills. That being said, speaking skills alone aren't sufficient for my ballot as the decision itself will go on the flow.
Framework: Most rounds dont have FW and, while I don't really have a say in the PF World, I really think debaters should state and defend a weighing mechanism. Otherwise, I just default to which ever world (pro or con) is better or, if thats not applicable, whoever wins their arguments.
Evidence: Make it clear what info/stats you are referring to in a speech. I honestly much rather prefer PF do full MLA citations instead of referring to evidence in the same manner you would in an extemp speech (which is what I saw from my brief experience of it) but if you dont have them fully prepared when youre reading this and the round is in like 5 minutes, dont sweat it.
Disclosure?????: If youre going to read disclosure theory, I expect a whole shell written out. In other words, I'll hold you to the same threshold to theory in a CX/LD round and you should take a look at my notes there under theory.
Other Notes: actually read pls
READING THE WHOLE RES TEXT DOES nothing for you and you should just move on to the case.
Reading a million definitions also does nothing for you unless you want to avoid a topicality argument (which i doubt will happen here). Usually there's only one or two vague terms/words in every topic for all debates so stick to those please instead of telling me everything.
Try not to make Grand Crossfire a crapshoot
I'll disclose RFDs unless the tournament tells me not to.
Focus on clash- many PF debates have little to no clash and it's a problem.
Given how the resolutions as of late are literally begging you to have a plan debate with the ground given and the inclusion of "should" in res, I won't auto down plans. That being said, if both teams are unsure, they should should come to a consensus with their opponent and myself to sort the debate beforehand.
Marina Leventis Paradigm
I competed nationally for Colleyville Heritage in PF debate for four years. This is my second year judging as well as coaching for Cypress Woods.
How I Evaluate Rounds:
TL;DR Weigh your arguments in summary and ff, what's not in summary should not be in final focus, and the second speaking team must do case defense in the second rebuttal on offense from the first rebuttal.
1. The team that does a better job weighing the offense they're winning is going to win the round, you know this. Just don't go for only defense at the end of the round, because that's not a reason to vote for you, that just might be a reason not to vote for your opponent.
2. Any offense in the final focus that is not in summary will not be evaluated. If you're a "new in the two" kinda person, you will get lower speaks, and you will more than likely lose my ballot.
3. If you don't answer offense (overviews, turns, whatever it may be) from the first rebuttal in the second rebuttal, I will consider that offense dropped. You don't have to answer all the ink on the flow, just respond to turns and overviews and you'll be fine. I would prefer all of the first rebuttal to be answered, but I will not punish you for not doing so. If the second speaking rebuttal answers the entirety of the first speaking rebuttal, the first summary should extend defense. If the second speaking rebuttal only answers offense, then the first summary need not extend defense.
Overviews are great; if you read an overview that goes unanswered you will probably win my ballot unless it's terminal defense. But tell me where to flow them before you start reading it or I will likely miss a lot of what you're saying. Also please answer frameworks if you don't agree with them, don't expect me to ignore what someone else has presented.
I appreciate taking the time to weigh responses way more than I appreciate card dumping. If I catch a team powertag or strawcut stuff or any other funky evidence misrepresentations, I will be very mad about it and at the very least you will be getting bad speaks.
I personally think grand crossfire is a waste of 3 minutes so if both teams agree to throwing it out I will be much nicer with speaks. Let me clarify, this does not give you extra prep time. I will not at all be angry if you decide that grand cross is important to the round for whatever reason, I simply just want to extend this offer that I would have appreciated as a competitor.
Recently I have noticed a speed trend in PF which is fine and I can keep up with, but most teams sacrifice weighing and clarity simply to go faster. Please note card dump statement above: if you read 20 responses that aren't articulated well or weighed etc., you are not gaining any points with me.
Samuel Loh Paradigm
Sam Loh / Updated for start of '19 season
All email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated for Plano West: 2016-2018
Assistant PF Coach Hebron: August 2018 - June 2019 (Temporary Judging Conflict)
Colleyville Heritage: June 2019 - Present (Permanent Judging Conflict)
I am putting this up here so you don't miss it when reading the whole paradigm. Make sure you read paradigms carefully so there are no "surprises" at the end of the round. Changes have also been bolded in the main paradigm.
With the 3 minute summary change:
-Extensions in summary must include the full argument now (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact) and yes you still need warrants. If you do not extend the full argument, do not expect me to give you offense
-There is no more "sticky defense". Defense must be extended in first summary now or it is dropped
-If you do not do weighing in summary your speaks will tank. I mean it. They literally gave you an entire extra minute.
-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in first summary (adopted from the MSJ KW paradigm). This is to encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.
-That same rule goes for "going for everything in summary". If you are one of those people who thinks more summary time = more case offense to go for, you will not be happy with speaks.
-My threshold for dropping speaks on finding cards has gone down. I am tired of waiting for people to pull up evidence. I will give you 1:30 to find evidence before I start dropping speaks. For every portion of 30s you go over, it's -0.5. I drop the evidence at 3 minutes. If you disclose full text, a doc with proper cut cards, or hyperlink to original ev, you are protected from this.
o LD/CX Shortcuts (LD/CXers I implore that you also read my LD section for your own sake)
Plans, DA's - 1
CP's, PICs - 2
Util Framing - 1/2
Theory - 2 (This probably goes to a 5 if you try going for something like meta meta theory)
T -2/3 (Not super experienced with Extra-T, Effects-T and args of that sort)
K - 3/4 (I should be able to follow generally as long as you warrant well)
Non-Util/Phil Frameworks - 3/4 (Deon is alright, ontology starts becoming tricky)
Non-T Affs - 5
Tricks - 5 (I don't even know what the definition of this is or what it looks like)
o PF'ers looking to do strikes:
- I do not have a preference of "true vs untrue" arguments, if you win the argument, you win offense. Nor do I have a different threshold for the quality of the response that needs to be made. Everything should be warranted. Trying to make unwarranted "truth>tech" responses will hurt your speaks
- I inherently think that all case level arguments are dispositional. I am very unreceptive to "condo good" on case substance.
- I tend to like rounds that are more tech and line by line in nature over slower big picture debates. That being said, I will still evaluate either.
- Aff fiat goes as far as the specific wording of the resolution. The aff does not get to fiat out of procedural negative disadvantages that happen as a result of the passing of the plan (Ex: Politics DAs or NRA control on the UBC topic)
- I am very receptive to progressive arguments. If you are a team that does not want/is unprepared to debate anything beyond case level substance you may want to strike me.
- I am pro disclosure. If you are a team who is adamantly against the practice of disclosure and do not want to risk debating disclosure theory, I would consider striking me.
Paradigm is kind of long but truth be told I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:
1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim
2) The 2R has to cover turns or I consider them dropped.
3) Defense isn't sticky with a 3 minute summary.
4) CX non binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in speech to try and get out of a concession
5) Don't like "risk of offense" or phrases along the lines of "our ev is good at saying ____"
6) Anything that is not contested in the speech after it is read (except case substance) becomes functionally conceded
7) Need parallelism in summary/ff, offensive extensions must be in both speeches
8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument
9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round
10) no new args/weighing in second ff
11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it (basically dispositional). I will not buy kicks unless you concede defense the opponents have read in which that case is on them. Do not try reading "condo good", I will be very unreceptive
12) PF is a debate event, speaks are given on how well you debate not how well you speak
Whole paradigm below:
Personal Preferences not related to argumentation
-Preflowing: Preferably before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes i'm docking .5 speaks for every extra minute you take.
-Coin Flip: I'll be asking for sides and speaking order before the round starts so I don't really care. Flip outside if you want
-Sitting/Standing/etc.: In perfect honesty, I don't care. If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. It's probably most appropriate if you stand during speeches but if it's a late round and you're tired from running around the tournament all day I don't mind if you sit.
-Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD: General thought- post round discussion is good for the activity.
Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. All I ask is that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.
o Postround me if you want to. I don't dock speaks unless you make morally reprehensible statements. I don't care if you're not directly affiliated with the competitors in the room and are just watching - if you disagree feel free to speak out.
o I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more more beneficial than harmful to the debate space
-Spectators: In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. On the other hand, prelims is a bit of a different story. I very strongly believe that parents or coaches of a team competing in the round should be allowed to watch. I would be pretty upset if a judge told me I wasn't allowed to sit and observe how my kids debate a round. For people non-affiliated (Ex. bringing friends from a different program) : that choice I leave to the debaters. If someone doesn't want them to watch, I'm going to ask them to leave so don't be surprised when that happens. I am also not a fan of people sitting in rounds, flowing the AC and NC and then leaving. If something comes up like you get pulled for a judge assignment, feel free to leave but if I observe anybody consistently engaging in leaving after the first speeches it's probably a tab report.
I generally consider myself tabula rasa and I’ll evaluate any argument you give me on an offense/defense paradigm as long as it’s properly warranted and impacted. However, given that, don’t run something that’s homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.
-Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.
-I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. The only things I dislike are massive card dumps. However, please be logical as to what needs to be carded. Don't tell me that x has gone down without providing a stat.
-At least for me, well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk
-Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Any of this has to be done in the speech following. Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.
-I won't intervene on abuse unless it's conditional case arguments. If your opponents are being abusive please call them out. However on the flip side the more abusive you are the lower my threshold for how much of an "they're abusive" arg needs to be made for me to consider dropping whatever is being considered abusive. General guidelines: NIBs and other strategy orientated tactics like specific framing will require a shell, super abusive args like conditional cp's and floating pics just require you to point out they're abusive.
-Just for clarification this does not mean that you can just say "they're abusive" when they run theory - you have to engage in the shell debate but there's a higher likelihood I just end up washing more friv theory/t shells and evaluating case as long as you make responses. Additionally, if it's blatantly obvious you're running up against novices, attempting to run anything progressive will tank your speaks.
-Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not be a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.
-If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo. However, I would be willing to listen to arguments in round on going about default otherwise and I think I would be strongly compelled to buy a warranted default first argument
-General Idea: If you don't do a good job responding to terminal defense and just say vote for us on risk, don't expect to win my ballot. Having minimum offense v. having no offense are two completely different things. This is a really big issue with me because I think going solely for "risk" is lazy debate that doesn't require you to win a 100% strength of link into your impact. I'll still evaluate risk but make sure you're not using it to clear untouched terminal defense.
My position on "risk of offense": I think it's reasonable but only to a certain extent. I don't think the aff can expect to win rounds just by saying "risk of offense" without actually responding to anything terminal. This would break the game because if the aff can always win via default risk, neg can't win rounds. I am inclined to give risk of offense that is accessing some kind of weak strength of link into their offense and using risk to emphasize the importance of the possibility of the link triggering the impact. It would be even better if you do the analysis on why risk of that link occurring is so important.
- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.
-Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. Yes, I'm calling those claims because they aren't arguments. Debate isn't I make a claim, you make a claim, and we argue with only claims without thinking about the reasoning those claims are set on. Using these alone will not clear defense for you on my flow and excessive attempts will lose you speaks.
-Meta weighing is important and if such a thing exists, I would be willing to hear arguments about a second layer of meta weighing. If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing
-Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.
-I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.
-If for some reason you feel that it is necessary to go for preemptive frontlines in the 1R I'm fine with it
-If you want to use half or so of your time on the second constructive and the rest of the time responding to opponent case, go for it.
-Highly would prefer line by line (For the majority of you debaters it probably increases your chance of getting my ballot compared big picture)
-If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your interp or framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my fwork for evaluation. If one side drops their framework, I will default to whichever is left in the round, this includes second constructive if first speaking team presents a framework. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Anytime after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.
-I usually default util absent framing but it may change depending on what I think is the most meaningful interp of the res. Ofc if you present and warrant your own fwork this doesn't really matter
~Philosophy Type Stuff:
-I really don't think any of this will matter since a lot of the depth here is K stuff (reference K's below) but for those who like to use these args as framing
My order of comfort in evaluating goes:
1) Consequentialism - I'm fine with it
2) Deontology - I have some understanding of this, you should be fine as long as you don't go too deep or draw really obscure lines between ideas
3) Ontology - I have a somewhat/very surface level understanding and how it functions in the round. You probably will have to do a bit of explaining of these if you go for them but I might have a very general idea of what you're saying.
4) It's more high theory but I've read a bit of Baudrillard. Do I understand it well? No. I am willing to evaluate it? Sure.
5) Not listed - I'll try my best to understand but chances are I'm going to be completely lost and will have no clue how to evaluate. Would advise you to stay away for the sake of your own W/L record.
-Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate but it is still possible to get my ballot if you don't collapse at the cost of speaks.
-I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing in second final unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. If you think it helps start in rebuttal if you really want. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final
-Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.
-No new terminalization of impacts in second final
-Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. Like please spend at least a second on it to avoid confusion. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.
-THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact)
-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new ev in first summary
-First summary must extend defense (I.e. it is no longer sticky). Otherwise it's dropped
-My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then I need you to do some minimal warrant impact extension for me to give you offense
-Shadow extension of turns from rebuttal to ff will be weighed as defense but will not be a voting issue. Turns in this context means a real turn that has both the offensive and defensive implications.
-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....
-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization. Even if the opponents extend the impact, you will need to re-implicate why the turn/s means I vote for you
*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument
-Note that running any of these against novices will tank your speaks
-CP's: Would generally prefer if you don't run these since coaches have differing views on the legality of these in PF but I'll still evaluate them (unless operating under NSDA rules). No conditional cp's - I will have a super low threshold on dropping the arg if you're called out for being abusive. .
-K's: Generally speaking I'll vote off them. Note that I'm not experienced in the K debate and doing anything super far in the realms of LD/CX is probably going to lose me. This is especially true since I haven't read much K lit (Have read some Wilderson, some Baudrillard) so if things aren't explained you probably aren't going to get the result you want. You've been warned.
-Theory: In short I default to reasonability, no rvi, drop the debater
Winning only defense on a shell doesn't constitute rvi
Winning turns on the shell without a CI constitutes a vote on the original interp in the round
Special Note on disclosure theory since it's become somewhat controversial: I personally feel that disclosure makes the debate space better so if you want run disclosure theory, you've got a green light from me. If you want to have a discussion about why disclosure is good or bad, I'd be happy to sit down and have that discussion with you.
-T: Generally follow the same reasoning as theory (posted above). However, note that my threshold for T is higher than it is for theory. If you try to run some crazy policy type extra-t stuff I'm just going to be lost. Reading multiple t shells is ok but make sure you can name advocacies that grant ground.
T Defaults: Competing Interps, No RVI, Drop the Arg, T before Theory
-For roadmaps I'm fine with "x off" as long as you're signposting and tagging each off at the top
-If you plan on reading at a pace much faster than traditional pf please email me speech docs. If not you run the risk of me missing something so that's on you. Please slow down on plan texts, alts, interps, and standard tags. Thanks :)
Spreading and the likes of it:
-If you think your opponents are spreading you out of the round, feel free to slow/clear while they're speaking. I think that in order to have the most functional and fair debate, both sides should have the right to understand what the other team is saying and what their arguments are. Try to keep it reasonable from both ends. If you yell clear when it is very obvious to me that there isn't a need to, you're losing .5 speaks.
-Don't know why people do wpm counts, I don't get the point. I'll clear you if needed. If you think you're running too close to a dangerous boundary you probably are. Email chains/flash to everyone in round is appreciated.
-TLDR: My range is generally 27-29. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job.
Stats for your own reference:
2018-2019 VPF Year Average: ~28.5 (220 total speakers)
2019-2020 Average (Updated through Gvine): 28 (72 speakers)
-Just because I judged for a policy school does not mean because I can follow spreading because I can't. I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. Too many clears in a row will also lead to speaker point loss
-I personally believe that speaker points should be reflective of both how strategic you are and how well you handle the arguments in the round. Engaging with links, warrants, and similar depth type debate that creates a really good round is the easiest way to get higher speaks. That being said, there are other things that you still have to do. (I.e. responding to opponent's arguments/not extending through ink, collapsing, etc.) Expect average speaks to be around 28.
-General Penalties (This is just a condensed list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):
1) taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)
2) taking too long pull up evidence (.5 for every extra 30s after 1:30), teams who disclose are protected.
3) being non strategic (depends on how hard I think you butcher it, includes no weighing/going for everything)
4) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)
5) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you
6) Too much use of the frontline "Our evidence is very specific in saying ___" instead of engaging with the warranting behind argumentation.
7) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears
8) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices
9) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.
10) Severe evidence misrep. (Trust me you prob. won't want to see your speaks if you do this)
-Bonus speaks. When I say my non-bubble average is 28 I mean my average is a 28. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you
1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)
2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)
3) Cutting at least one cross short when you have no questions left (+.2). Note that you cannot cut the entirety of grand cross for obvious reasons
4) Email chaining/flashing the AR/NR with properly cut evidence gets both partners a .5 speaker point bump
5) At any tournament , disclosure on the NDCA wiki gets you 1 speaker pt bonus. Yes you will get a full speaker point bump.
6) If you have an established page on the PF Circuit Debater Wiki (found here) with something on it/not empty, you get a full 1pt speak bump. Circuit Debater is a great resource for all debaters and I'm encouraging you to use it. If you haven't looked at it you should definitely check it out.
I've changed how I explain this part pretty drastically from how it used to be but the ideas remain mostly the same.
- I do not call for evidence unless I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also tend to base my understanding of your ev based on how it was originally read.
- I would suggest reading cut cards in case and having cut cards for anything you read available. Disclosing is good practice and should be mandated, I'll give you a speaker point bonus. Sending speech docs of cards read in rebuttal is also good and you also get bonus speaks.
-If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm not calling for it because you're not getting the extension on my flow. You should know what your own evidence says and if you're trying to do some shady ev misrep that's a definitive no.
-Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.
-"Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In round, a minute thirty to search, -0.5 speaks each 30s you go over, I drop it at 3 min. In the case I call for ev after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it".
o L20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.
o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it's a flat speaker point penalty for being unorganized and I drop the ev out of the round.
o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.
-I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.
-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.
-No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging. Will get emails of at least one debater from each team so I can copy rfd from ballot onto an email for all of you.
Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of two people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:
Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round
-If I had more PF teams competing here I wouldn't be judging LD/CX but since you're reading this we're going to have to find a way to make it work.
-If it makes it easier for you to do MJP:
o I never did any LD/CX in high school, just pf. Familiar with structures of CP's/K's/Theory,T and can probably evaluate it on a surface level. I can't follow spreading.
o 2018-2019 Season I judged about maybe 10-12 rounds of LD, 2 at some Dallas local (non bid, relatively small pool), Majority of prelims at UT
-I'm willing to evaluate any standard argument on an offense/defense paradigm and weighing is greatly appreciated (I don't want to have to intervene)
-I reserve the right to drop you for any offensive language
-When making extensions in later speeches, please extend the argument. I don't want just an author name
-I would prefer you to stay away from philosophy because I don't understand it very well.
-For more progressive stuff: As long I think you are doing a good job of engaging with the link story and clash on progressive args, I will reward you with 29-30 speaks hopefully to offer minimum compensation for my lack of ld qualification. If I feel that the debate is revolving around simple stock structure args that are present in every debate space, I will be more picky about speaks (you can reference the pf speaks section above).
-Standard Plan Aff's, DA's, CP's.: I have a general understanding of how these arguments work but if you're doing anything super technical you probably will have to explain it. I don't know what the norms in LD are but please do not read multiple conditional counterplans. Floating pics are not ok either.
-Theory/T: Theory/T comes before case and the default is reasonability no rvi. I had a fair understanding of how these worked in PF but I don't know the norms in LD and you'll have to do explanation and/or analysis on what constitutes abuse for theory. I think I would be lead to believe T more than theory.
-K's: I don't have a great understanding of K debate. I get the link/impact/alt but don't know much about "clash" on k. I haven't read any of the standard LD k evidence so don't expect me to know a lot. I'll try my best to evaluate K but don't expect too much.
-Completely unfamiliar with evaluating >2 Layers so T before K type arguments (or vice versa), meta theory, etc. will require explanation
-If you're reading 3 or more of the same type of off (DA, theory, t, etc.) I need a more specific roadmap. If you are reading any off that is a technical part of ld I will probably need specific explanation.
Speed: If you re planning to spread this is probably where I'm going to have the hardest time following you given my background. Please email me speech docs beforehand and I will clear you if I need to.
Joshua Long Paradigm
Although PF should be an evidence based debate, it must have a thorough explanation and interpretation of the card. I have competed in Public Forum for 3 years so I am experienced in debate. However, imagine if I were a lay judge.
Tushar Madan Paradigm
I have extensive experience with Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate. I debated at the highest levels of the TFA, NSDA, UIL and TOC circuits.
I am generally open to all types of arguments as long as they are properly warranted, explained, and extended. An extension is not as simple as saying "extend contention x"; I need the debater to do the work in concisely explaining the claim, warrant, and impact during their extension for me to fully weigh it in later rounds. I am okay with speed but, if you choose to spread, I am assuming that you are going to enunciate and will have no issues with clarity.
Feel free to ask any other specific questions at the beginning of the round.
Vinay Mahendra Paradigm
I am a parent judge.
Jonathan McNamee Paradigm
Eric Mears Paradigm
Madhav Mehta Paradigm
Be civil. Ask me specific questions if you have any before the round.
Clarissa Moreno Paradigm
I have been coaching and judging debate for over a decade.
For PF: I really want the competitors to run the round and do what they do. I like direct clash and clear weighing. I'm not a huge fan of numbers/statistics for their own sake but prefer them to be weighed against their opponents. I appreciate well researched cases with a clear understanding of the topic and its implications. Economic stuff is tough to do so make sure you understand what you're actually arguing on a topic that is econ heavy.
I believe I vote fairly based off of the information presented in round; I try to come in as neutral as possible. I appreciate direction on the flow and organization while speaking. It really does help make sure that I get as much as possible and can judge the best.
Lehia Murray Paradigm
Rachel Nichols Paradigm
Hannah Nunley Paradigm
Background: I have competed in just about every single event imaginable and still compete in college. I currently debate at Texas State where I do Parli, PF, LD, and IPDA. I have state recognition/medals in policy, congress, extemp, parli, ipda, and impromptu. I also have national recognition in Worlds (octos), extemp debate, PF (9th place), parli (7th place), and extemp.
I really don't care what kind of arguments you run - I will pretty much listen to and flow everything. I will not, however, listen to kritiks that link into the other team personally (i.e. don't run a cap k and have the link be something about the type of clothing/electronics the other team is using) or any of the "T's" that have anything to do with the type of grammar used in the 1AC or otherwise. I'm also not a huge fan of running just 1 off or on for the entire round - I've only seen that done successfully one time ever. I'm also not a huge fan of performance cases or cases that essentially down debate in general. I think that there's like 1/1000 instances in which these would be good to run, and you just don't run into those situations.
Ask me for clarification! I will adapt to you, you don't have to adapt to me. I love debate and am here to help you!!
Michala Perreault Paradigm
No school affiliation
I competed old-school CX-style debate plus extemp, DI and oratory in HS, both competed and coached the parliamentary style and oratories at university in Canada. I enjoy judging CX and LD; have found the value in each style, incl PF and Congress. NFL/NSDA, TSA TOC & UIL. Judged NFL/NSDA Nationals 2011, 2015. My debate philosophy applies universally.
Debate is about developing and applying the skills of well-founded argumentation and persuasion. Burden of proof rests with the Aff, but if Neg makes a weak effort, I shift easily. I find excessive speed and spread techniques to be feeble attempts to “hedge the bet” rather than to argue incisively. If I can’t understand the speaker I will call “clear.” If I have to say it more than once it will count against you (speaker points). Speed in speaking is of no use in any other area of life; skillful persuasion on the other hand serves all; the essence of life is that arguments can be made. Make them.
Framework: It’s the prerogative of the affirmative to identify a need for change and propose a plan to implement the change, negative to show that aff’s plan will bring more harm than good. Counterplans – must still refute Aff case, and there must be a net benefit to the counterplan, not merely an alternative idea. I do not weigh them equally without sufficient refutation of Aff case: again, debate is about well-structured argumentation and persuasion, not merely a clash of new ideas. Affs, don’t forget to pull the debate back to your original arena while refuting a counterplan.
Arguments of educational theory / claims of abuse are weak in my view: arguments can always be made. Don’t whine. If you claim it, prove it and move on, give an “even if” substantive argument after the abuse claim.
Topicality: It is the Aff’s prerogative once again to define the terms under which they structure their case. If Neg can refute and support with strength, do so, otherwise T’s feel weak to me. A mere tit-for-tat exchange yields nothing. I will pay attention to the plan text content vs stated benefits and DAs; if the T demonstrates peripheral harms, those arguments count.
K's: Another judge said it so well: I like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the K, I will most likely weigh it as within the framework above. I weigh the implications just like other arguments. Make sure to argue a K from Your Social Position; it carries far more weight when Authentic. If I accept the world of the K, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the K as well. Extending line by line responses does little unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the K will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.
Evidence: Use it effectively, efficiently. Don’t read it in a lightning-slur. I may ask to examine evidence after the round to verify that it was used accurately; did it actually support your argument? Whether that counts against you depends if your opponent caught it.
Philosophical Debates: As a classicist (Latin & Greek) I’m always up for a purely philosophical round, rife with humor, rhetoric, etc. All above guidelines apply, but there is more room to stretch the boundaries.
Other: Profanity / rudeness counts against you; I will disclose in early rounds for educational benefit, happy to give notes for improvement, but the debate is over at that point and attempts to argue the decision with me will not go well for you.
In the end, I’m more persuaded by depth of argumentation, skill and rhetoric than breadth of points. FOR LD: Specifically, does your Criterion support your Value? All: Weigh impacts to prove/persuade. Spin/bluff skillfully. Group points to avoid dropping them. Don’t posture or whine; make the argument.
Rishika Prakash Paradigm
Chetan Reddy Paradigm
I graduated from Plano West Senior High School in 2017. I debated competitively for four years, competing primarily in PF, extemp, and LD.
Tech over truth, but there's a line. Warrant your arguments well. Don't read blatantly false arguments for the purpose of dumping cards on the flow. Don't read arguments that attempt to bring merit to homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. If there any other questions you may have that aren't covered below, please feel free to ask me before the round starts.
Organization: Organization in your speeches can make a huge difference in how I'm able to judge you. If you can number your responses, refer to evidence by name, and generally signpost well, you are far more likely to exit the round with a win and/or high speaks.
Speed: As long as you're clear, you should be fine. That being said, I tend to enjoy debates that don't delve into the insane speeds seen in other forms of debate. If I'm unable to write something down, I won't vote off of it, so slow down for anything important that you definitely want me to have on my flow. I will not intervene by saying "clear" or putting my pen down to let you know I can't understand you. Make sure you're regulating your own speed and clarity.
Evidence: I generally will not intervene in debates based on evidence unless a claim is especially egregious or if the other team questions the validity of the card. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if asked to, so make sure you have a full PDF, or contextually cut card, of all cited evidence on hand. If any evidence is being flashed or emailed, I would love to receive a copy. Miscut/misconstrued evidence will result in a definite loss of speaker points, depending on how egregious the offense is.
Speaks: I give average speaks, with exceptions being if a debater is rude, unintelligible, or unethical. I take quality of argumentation into account when evaluating speaks, so if you prettily spout nonsense, you probably won't like the outcome.
Framework: I love framework when it's done well, but I know that PF debates often don't have time to fully flesh these out. At a base level, all I'm looking for is extensive weighing of arguments; if you don't need framework to do that, then more power to you. At an LD level, I want to hear clear reasons to prefer arguments.
Extensions: Second rebuttal does not need to respond to first rebuttal, but it would be strategic to respond to turns. First summary does not need to extend defense, unless second rebuttal frontlined. Defense is sticky, but not mentioning any part of your defense in later speeches will probably result in lower speaks. Turns that aren't extended through the summary will be evaluated as defense, but won't be a voting issue. I won't vote on an argument that's dropped in the summary or final focus unless I am left with nothing else to vote on. In my book, 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.
Kritiks: These have to be done exceptionally well for me to vote off of them in Public Forum. Through experience, I have found that these are often not done exceptionally well in PF. Take what you will from that. In LD, go for it, I'll evaluate almost anything.
Plans/Counterplans: Don't pull these out in PF. I'm fine with advocacies if you can show that there is at least a reasonable probability your advocacy would happen. Advocacies/CPs okay for November 2018 PF topic. It's chill in LD.
Theory/Topicality: Only run this if there's substantive abuse. If I don't believe a side is being abusive, even if you win the theory debate, I won't vote on it. I love good topicality debates in LD.
If all else fails, I’ll answer specific questions before round.
Naveen Santhosh Paradigm
Naveen Santhosh /// Seven Lakes '16; TAMU '20 // Updated Jan 2019
I competed public forum debate for all 4 years of high school. I did alright.
I like clarity. Weigh pls. I shouldn't have to think too much after the round ends.
Does 2nd rebuttal have to respond to 1st? --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWATnimbsg8
I am okay with speed. Cringe-dad jokes is an auto 30.
If you read anything that even hints at theory, I will disregard it and tank your speaks. My paradigm does not prevent teams from calling out abuse. Just do not read a shell and ask me to drop the debater, you and I will both be sad.
If you misrepresent/miscut/misconstrue evidence:
Have fun! Good luck!
Kelsey Sawyer Paradigm
First and foremost, thank you for participating in this incredible sport and for sharing your hard work with me. Please feel free to ask any questions before we begin the round. Don't forget to have fun! :)
Background: I graduated from Plano East in 2011. My high school career focused primarily on Congress and Foreign Extemp, ending with 1.5 years of policy (2A/1N, former Michigan camper). After a brief speech career at UT Austin, I have spent the last ~5 years judging extensively across Houston and Dallas circuits, all events, and recently including TFA State and NSDA Nationals. I currently work in management consulting.
Core paradigm: Naturally details will differ based on the event, although generally speaking I am a games player judge. Also, in each debate event I want to see three competencies in addition to your general strategy of argumentation: 1) integrity, by demonstration of the relevancy of your argument/evidence, 2) comprehension, by crystallization of how your cards prove the point you are trying to make, and 3) curiosity, by direct clash with your opponent.
Spreading: I understand the function of spreading in policy, less so in LD, and absolutely not in PF or congress.
Cross-ex: In a world where teams are sharing cases and resources, I need to see very clearly that you are understanding how your case works and not just going through robotic motions as instructed by your peers because the 'strategy works'. So, while I do not flow cross-ex, I will be unimpressed if it becomes clear that you do not know your material thoroughly enough to answer questions about it.
Non-traditional arguments: I have voted for Ks in the past, but do not support using this this style of argument to 'cleverly' avoid building an actual rebuttal or engaging. So you have a stronger burden of proving relevancy if you decide to use a K. I have also voted for topicality and theory arguments - I view this as a core part of the heart and governance of this event - but it is not a catch-all strategy.
Quantity: Don't make disingenuous arguments to cheat having to put in effort or engage with the round. It is also better to make one or two very strong arguments than to make ten weak ones.
I look forward to hearing your insights! Good luck!!
(updated July 2019)
Urmil Shah Paradigm
Adeena Sheraz Paradigm
I advise speakers to avoid spreading, and to speak clearly and legibly. Provide clear voters, and direct clash. Signposting is appreciated. If I can't understand what you are saying, or if you do not clearly state the sources and credentials of your evidence, you will not get my vote. Also- be classy and polite. If I sense that teams are being disrespectful to one another, points will be docked. Cross examination is important, so please use up all the time, but do not waste time. You are here to debate, not bicker.
Omer Siddiqui Paradigm
I was more of a traditional PF debater, so I'm not as well-versed or receptive to progressive arguments, so avoid abusive arguments and complicated theory. That being said, I'm fine with most arguments as long as you provide clear and reliable evidence, explanations, and impacts. Just remember this is PF, not LD or CX. I will vote strictly on the flow, so be sure to signpost and make your arguments/extensions very clear. Provide me with a weighing mechanism and some parameters as to how I should evaluate the round. If you impact your arguments but don't tell me how to evaluate them or why they matter more than your opponents arguments, it's hard to make a cohesive case for your side. Line-by-line attacks are super helpful and encouraged. As for speaking, a little speed is fine, but absolutely no spreading. Annunciation and clarity are really important, as it's hard to evaluate your side if I can't understand what you're saying.
Shaaswat Singh Paradigm
Sankalp Singh Paradigm
Teju Sitaram Paradigm
Inka Stewart Paradigm
Jianhua Su Paradigm
Have limited technical experience with Public Forum Debate. Thus, you should debate accordingly.
1. Go slow, or at the very least, keep your speed at an acceptable pace. Otherwise, I may not catch everything you say or I may not understand it.
2. Don't use debate-y jargon. If you think I won't understand it, give it in lay terms.
3. Prove to me why your argument is true and why it matters. If I only get one or the other, it will be hard to me to evaluate. Make clear comparisons if you make directly competing statements so I have an easy way to sign my ballot.
4. Give me very clear warranting and reasoning behind any claims made. It shouldn't be confusing for a lay judge like me to follow.
5. Having a clear narrative throughout every speech during the round is very important to me. Don't make it confusing and try to go off blippy turns on their case if it doesn't contribute to a narrative. Also, don't change your strategy from summary to final focus because more likely than not I won't evaluate it. Narrative will be especially important in summary/final focus for me.
6. Be organized and let me know what argument you're talking about as you move along, especially in the last two speeches.
7. Be courteous in crossfire and don't let it turn into a yelling match. That's counterproductive to debate.
8. I don't care if second rebuttal responds or doesn't respond to attacks made in first rebuttal. However, I do wish to see relevant responses extended in the first summary, especially if they grant you offense or are heavily contentious in the debate.
9. I am pretty lenient on speaks; I will start out at 30 and deduct from there only if I see anything particularly heinous or outrageous. This includes: being unethical, rude, and having especially poor organization/argumentation. Just be polite and don't let me be confused, or you won't like the outcome.
10. I default to a utilitarian framework if no competing framework is brought up. But if you do bring up one, warrant it very clearly.
11. I don't evaluate theory or anything considered progressive. Just letting you know.
Zubair Sukhyani Paradigm
I'm cool with everything
email chain: email@example.com
Art Tay Paradigm
Plano West '18 | SMU '22
I debated PF for four years. I did okay. I consider myself a fairly technical judge.
TL;DR: If you want my ballot, give me a clear link story from the resolution all the way to the RFD. I'm lazy so write my RFD for me. I won't be offended if you say "your RFD should be". Impact contextualization is really important for me. Tell me why I should care about what you've just said.
Absent explicit framing I will default to a cost benefit analysis.
If there is no offense I fell comfortable voting for at the end of the round I will presume the first speaking team. This is because I believe that in PF the second speaking team has an inherent advantage because of the way that speeches are structured.
The second rebuttal must frontline turns made in the first. If the first speaking team duh goofs and doesn't extend the turn, I guess you lucked out. The other way out of this hole is cross-applying something you did extend, or weighing.
The second rebuttal should frontline terminal defense. If a piece of terminal defense is unresponded to out of the second rebuttal and the first summary extends it, I will have a high threshold to grant the second summary new answers. Conceding defense will also increase my threshold for risk of offense claims in later speeches.
Unextended turns in the summary can be extended in the final focus as terminal defense.
I don't need complete parallelism, but I won't vote on something that isn't in both the summary and final focus.
Unresponded defensive sticks, although I would advise the second summary to extend defense against arguments extended in the first summary.
I probably won't listen to cross, so if something important happens bring it up in speech.
Extensions must include a warrant and an impact.
I like big picture and narrative stuff because I'm too lazy to go through and evaluate the line by line unless your arguments spark my interest.
I won't vote you down if I think you were unstrategic, but I might lower your speaks.
Collapsing and weighing is a must. The sooner the better.
If you go for too much I will be sad.
I will give high speaker points for good implication, spin, and evidence comparison.
I didn't do CX or LD, but I understand how Plans, CP, DA's, and K's work.
I don't mind voting for these kinds of arguments, but I won't vote on novelty.
I will evaluate them as normal PF arguments, and they should be restructured in such a fashion.
If I think you are just reading down a backfile I won't vote on it (don't be lazy, do your own prep).
If you label DA's as turns I'll be sad, then you'll be sad when you see your speaks.
I love a good theory debate. 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 don't like waiting, so if you take too long to find evidence I'll dock speaks.
If you don't read dates I'll be sad 😞.
I'll call for evidence when:
1) I feel that it is being misrepresented.
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.
4) I'm interested 😏
I don’t auto drop debaters on evidence abuse. Small faults, such as minor late speech powertagging, that preserve the integrity of the card can result in no to minor consequences. More severe abuses can lead to me just dropping the argument.
Paraphrasing is ok AS LONG AS you're not misrepresenting evidence
I'm generally nice with speaks 30-28.
I prefer faster debates as long as you signpost well and speak clearly. Slow down on tags and authors.
If I miss something that's on you buddy.
*For Plano West Tournament*
Speaks will be given on the Jerry Scale.
I never did LD, but since you might have me as you're judge here is so information about me.
I have read parts of Wilderson, and some of the Cap stuff, but 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 have a better understanding of T debate in LD than theory. T arguments that seem compelling to me are good a case list, and TVA solves.
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.
Joseph Uhler Paradigm
I did not debate in high school or college. I started coaching fifteen years ago and I work mainly with extempers/congress/interpers/public speakers/PF debaters. When I judge LD, I try not to intervene. I will flow the round to the best of my ability. If you decide to run policy arguments in LD, I expect you to be able to articulate the arguments in a way that I can understand (fairly direct explanations). I am open to the use of policy type arguments, but the debaters should know that I expect them to know how to debate policy positions. I will listen to theory debate and vote there if the flow dictates. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, please know that I do not judge a lot of LD over the course of the year. I will make it very clear when I am not flowing and am not able to keep up. Make sure you explain your arguments and try to make the decision easy for me.
For PF, I view a PF round as though it is a funnel. The most important arguments should be articulated in the summary and final focus. If you are "going down the flow" in the summary and final focus, it is going to frustrate me, because you are probably going really fast and neglecting to explain why I should prefer certain arguments before others. Even if you do decide to go fast, I will still attempt to flow your speeches. You simply run the risk of forcing me to pick an argument, as opposed to explaining to me which arguments are the most important and why. Argument selection is an important skill, and I think that you should work on that skill in round.
In crossfire, please be nice. I will dock your speaker points if you are rude, or condescending. If you don't genuinely want to understand your opponents' arguments for the sake of understanding your opponents' arguments, then at least fake it.
Please do not hesitate to ask questions before or after the round. I want to help and I genuinely believe that I am there to help you learn.
Skyler Walker Paradigm
Background: I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years. I did two years of policy, two years of LD and 3 years of parli.
For my general paradigm, I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). I don't think it's my job to tell you that you can or cannot run certain arguments. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be I will default to policymaker. Speed is okay with me as long as you aren't sacrificing clarity. If I can't understand you I will stop flowing. Please keep your own time. As for how I feel about certain arguments:
Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework,a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. Additionally, if you are running a K, I would prefer that you only have one advocacy. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well fleshed out arguments that are extended throughout the round.
Theory/Topicality: My threshold for theory is pretty high. With that being said, I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win (hint: don't just say "that's abusive").
Counterplans/Disads: I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the case. In LD if you're going to run one, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you can, considering most of the time, there isn't a plan to begin with. Disads should be structured well.
Framework: I look to fw before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory obviously, specifically in LD. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for.
If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.
Desiree Wills Paradigm
Policy: This is my expertise, I debate policy all 4 years of high-school, went to state two years, and went to nationals once. I also participated in parley debate for my freshman year in college. So I am really relaxed on my paradigms. I would say that while i appreciate the Stock Issues structure of policy debate, I am totally fine and encourage critical debates and critical affirmatives. I am fine with speed, if for some reason you speak too fast for me (which is rare) I will yell clear and put my pen down if you do not slow down after. I do not like topicality as it takes away from education and the debate itself, it is a weak argument and it is boring to sit through a debate that consists of going back and forth about a definition about the meaning of "should". I also do not prefer CP's. My reasoning behind that is that it is normally just the same as the affirmative, just with a different actor and then we are just left with a conversation about who is the better actor. Its fine to run, I would just rather engage in different conversations. At the end of the round you should have given me a frame and several reasons on why to vote for you. I will not connect dots and do the work on the flow for you. So that means give me an impact calc, give me voters, give me a framework, and extend all arguments you want me to weigh in the round.
PF: I do not have any PF experience, but I have judged several PF rounds in the past couple of years. I do not have any specific paradigms but I will say be civil, explain things as if someone who has not ever heard a debate in their life, and do not spread. Just give me a framework to vote on! I will not do the work for you, so do it for me.
LD: I have competed in LD once in high-school and understand the structure. While in policy I am all for critical debates, I am fairly traditional in LD. If you incorporate radical thoughts and abstract thoughts, that is fine, but it needs to be in LD format. I do not like this sudden merge that is occurring in LD right now between LD and policy. If there are any policy based arguments in LD (Kritiks, CPs, DA's, T's, etc.) I am going to be REALLLY skeptical in voting for you if you do not run it correctly. Also, I do not understand very well the significance in running a CP, DA or T argument in LD, so if it is something you WANT me to vote for, walk me through it all the way. I will not do the work on the flow for you and I need you to give me a framework to vote on. Also voters at the end of the debate are huge musts. The fundamental basis of LD is to engage in a conversation about morals and ethics. So, lets save the CX type arguments for the CX'ers. I want to see a value and criterion, how they A) Uphold the resolution and B) how they link with all of your contentions.
Adam Wilson Paradigm
CX: I'm a tab judge that defaults to policymaker if not given (and convinced by) a clear framework. I evaluate framing/pre-fiat implication before post-fiat impacts such as DAs, Ks, and case advantages. I'm truth > tech for the most part, therefore warrant analysis will beat speed reading for me any day.
Speak to me- DON'T READ AT ME. Your evidence is a tool to make your argument, it is not in itself AN ARGUMENT. I don't expect the debaters to present their arguments in any particular format so long as I can understand and follow their flow. Take into account my previously stated opinion on speed here. I won't give you any visual or audio cues that you are going too fast for me- please speak so that all in round (e.g. judges, opponents, spectators) may understand.
LD: I enjoy both the "real world application" debate as well as conversations on the theoretical (especially in the context of morals). I enjoy in-depth warrant debates over fast debates containing many unresolved issues. Please remember that you are giving a speech, so speak to me- don't read at me. I need voters to make a decision so don't forget to clearly outline specific reasons that I should give you the ballot over your opponents. (B
Stephanie Zhang Paradigm
I competed all 4 years in PF and graduated from Plano West in 2018.
Tech over truth, but please don't take this as an indication to card dump. Cards without warrants hold little weight in my mind. My favorite saying is quality over quantity. My second favorite saying is "be like a whale and not a bunny." Bunnies are fluffy. Whales weigh a ton. In short, please, PLEASE, PLEASE WEIGH. It makes my job as a judge soooooo much easier if you weigh your arguments, and then I won't have to intervene and make everyone unhappy.
Note: I probably won't have done extensive research on the topics on hand so make sure to explain your arguments clearly, especially if you're not running stock arguments.
SIGNPOSTING IS CRUCIAL!!! I am sleep deprived from doing debate and college hasn't really helped with this situation. This doesn't mean that I'm going to fall asleep on you, but it's a warning that if you go too fast without signposting I will get lost on the flow especially if there's a lot on it. If you're not going the conventional top down approach signposting is even more crucial. You don't want me wasting time trying to find where you are on the flow and miss an argument that you place. That being said, if you're going the traditional top down line-by-line approach, please DO NOT give an off time road map. It's an unnecessary waste of time.
It would be nice if a framework appears and is warranted in constructive. It will help with the weighing later on in the round, granted if it get's extended in the latter half of the round. Simply stating that "our opponents didn't state a framework meaning that our's is the default" does not mean I buy it. Frameworks must also be WARRANTED, otherwise I default cost-benefit analysis and that might not be so great for you.
Line-by-line is preferable. I don't require 2nd rebuttals to completely respond to 1st rebuttals. However, you might find that you have a much greater chance of winning if you respond to turns that your opponents place. I think it's pretty abusive if opposing turns are responded to in 2nd summary. 2nd rebuttals don't have to respond to defense but if you have the time then by all means please do. In general please don't card dump. If you can place multi-warranted arguments instead that would be great! If you manage to weigh at the end that's even better!!
WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH! If different weighing mechanisms are given, then WEIGH the WEIGHING MECHANISMS. Defense sticks unless the opponents have already responded to it. Summary is where you collapse, COLLAPSE, COLLAPSE! Remember what my favorite saying is. Any arguments you want me to evaluate must be extended and appear in both speeches. And saying "extend contention one across the flow" is not extending. Some form of warrant and impact must be explained in order for arguments to be considered to be extended. Also don't extend through ink. If you try to, you just wasted part of your precious 2 minutes because I'm not going to consider it at the end of the round. Final focus should mainly be big picture voters. At the end of the day, why is your narrative ultimately the one I should vote for.
I'll call for evidence if it's contested in the round, the other team explicitly tells me to, or I think it's super sketchy. I HIGHLY prefer if the pdf of the evidence. Do not show me the paraphrased version of the evidence you read. If you can't produce the evidence or I think that you're blatantly misconstruing the evidence then I will drop it from the round. That means check your evidence before rounds start. It would suck if I had to drop you guys because of bad evidence.
My range is 28-30 unless you are straight up rude, racist, homophobic, etc. in round. Then I won't hesitate to tank your speaks. Otherwise, it's generally high speaks especially if you have a really good round narrative.
Don't be rude in crossfire, especially GCX. Don't scream at each other. Don't ramble during crossfire either. No one likes the person who decides that crossfire is just another 3 minute speech. If crossfire ends early then it ends early. There's no need to prolong it if no one has anymore questions. I expect you guys to hold each other accountable with prep time because I definitely won't be keeping track of it for you. If evidence is called for between teams, don't take forever to pull it up. Make sure to have it saved in some accessible way. LET'S TRY TO END ON TIME, OR EVEN BETTER YET EARLY because no one wants to be stuck here longer than necessary and no one will thank us for pushing back the tournament.
I'll evaluate these same as any other argument in the round, but if you get too technical then I will get considerably lost. This is PF, let's try to stick to what's generally considered PF.
Feel free to ask me any SPECIFIC questions before the round starts, and if you have questions about the rfd/ballot afterwards feel free to come find me! Otherwise, I look forward to the round!
Jason Zhang Paradigm
I graduated from Plano West in 2018. I competed in PF for four years.
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.
I prefer line by line rebuttals at the very least. If you choose to go with an unconventional order, then please signpost! If I can't follow you, I'll be very sad.
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.
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)_/¯
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.
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.
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. You 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 big picture summary and voter final focus. If you choose to go line by line, you best collapse boy.
I won't vote on anything if it's not in both of these speeches. Parallelism is good!
I can flow pretty well, but don't spread. If you speak at sanic levels I might miss the argument. If I'm just staring at you and not flowing, it probably means you're speaking at sanic levels.
Generally 28-30 unless you say something blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
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!