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
I have knowledge about hot topics, but I haven't judged many debate rounds (in fact i have judged 2). not sure what each speech does please be super clear
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.
-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.
-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.
-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 28 and deduct for rudeness, evidence ethics problems, general speaking, etc and goes up for good extensions, good strategy decisions, collapsing early, etc.
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.
I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.
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
My likes and preferences are irrelevant. I believe tournaments are opportunities to practice and exhibit your best debate skills. Therein, I encourage you to utilize whatever methods you have learned and perfected. The debater (team) that is more convincing will earn my vote. That said, please be aware that substance beats style. Meaning: a creditable case poorly delivered will beat an implausible case expertly delivered. Also, clarity is essential. Speed is acceptable, but only if accompanied by good diction. Any words not understood will be words ignored. Bottom line: What you show me will be considered your best. Good luck!
Govinda Dads Paradigm
Cara Day Paradigm
*Updated for January 2020*
St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21
Or FB message me with questions
I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. 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.
-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. 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, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. 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. ** 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.
-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- 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
-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). 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. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).
- CX is binding
- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.
- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.
- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)
-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.
-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. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)
I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.
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.
If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/
If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.
Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.
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).
My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.
Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.
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. Man ... it better be ...
If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.
I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.
First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.
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. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.
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.
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.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.
FW: I'm a philosophy major, 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 default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. 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.
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
I debated PF for four years and judged all events for five. I’m good with letting you make the round yours, so there’s no strict requirements that I’m looking for beyond the basics below.
Speed: Good with speed as long as you’re not stumbling over your words.
Evidence: Support all claims with empirical or logical warrants. Generally prefer empirical evidence over theory. Link back to topic.
Late Evidence: Don’t introduce new supporting evidence after the summary. Major evidence after 2nd CX.
Respect: Don’t turn it into a shouting match.
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
I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.谢谢!
Emily Gogle Paradigm
Mohit Gupta Paradigm
I've judged a few times for the past few years. I value good debate but try to keep it within the confines of PF. I like teams that maximize clash, keep the round relevant, and aren't too difficult to follow. I'll vote for the side who wins on the flow unless you are impossible to follow. I give generally good speaker points unless there is a big problem. Above all, be respectful and kind, it's just a debate.
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
PF/LD: I will normally judge based off of the round. Okay with speed. Prefer it if you don't run theory arguments.
Interp: I will take piece selection into account. Prefer more versatile pieces that display a wider range of skill and talent.
Speaking Events: I will count evidence and fluency breaks. I will also keep track of how evenly your time is distributed. I would also appreciate some humor - more in Original Oratory, less in extemporaneous speaking events.
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:
â€ 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
â€ 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...
â€ 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.
â€ 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...
â€ While I dislike "gotcha" debates, if there are absolutely no voters and clash, I will give the round to spikes.
â€ 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).
â€ 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).
â€ 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.
â€ 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.
â€ 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.
â€ 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:
â€ 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.
â€ 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.
â€ firstname.lastname@example.org is where you can send your cases if we decide to open an email chain.
â€ 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."
â€ If I see clash, I'll reward speaks. Same is true for presentation of arguments that are good.
â€ 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.
â€ 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
EMAIL CHAIN EMAIL CHAIN EMAIL CHAIN CHAIN EMAIL EMAIL CHAIN EMAIL CHAIN (copy and paste below, I can't believe I have had people trying to type this long email manually in round)
debate is a game (that means you all are gamers). like any competitive game, the best debates will be one with lots of healthy interaction. this means while reading evidence/pre-written blocks may be important, you should never sacrifice clash by excluding line by line, impact weighing, spinning args, etc.
Run literally whatever. If ur cool and/or funny you WILL get high speaker points. ALSO IF YOU give me extra flow paper (only the long one because i use that for homework lol) you WILL get high(er) speaker points.
The only rules to debate are the speech times.
do not be mean lol
please explain topic-specific jargon.
-For Policy, I default util, competing interps, and Drop the argument, presumption flows until neg abandons squo
-For LD, I default to Competing interps, no rvis, comparative worlds, no epistemic modesty (or epistemic certainty), drop the argument, permissibility flows aff, presumption flows neg until neg abandons squo.
-For PF- "Tab" (just go to my pf paradigm below it's not that long).
FLOWING: Slow down on Tags, Authors, Theory, spikes, things you REALLY want to me to know. Analytics that YOU REALLY want me to know or that you plan on spreading through should probably be sent in the doc. im not the BEST at understanding spreading so keep that in mind. CX is important and I flow it.
i mainly did ld for plano east with some experience in extemp, congress, and pf. I kind of do policy at UT
General rule of thumb: have a strategic game plan going into round and the ability to adjust that gameplan accordingly as the debate goes on. while line by line matters, i think that your strategy is the most important thing in debate rounds. thus, speaker points will be based on (and only on i dont care if you debate lying down or look silly) how optimal/intelligent/creative your strategy is and how well you execute it.
non-traditional cases/performances: open to them, although think that these affs should be grounded in the topic and have an advocacy (i dont think topic anarchy really does anything.) otherwise, winning FW might be an uphill battle. if not reading an advocacy is part of ur strat, explain why advocacies are bad and your non-traditional aff's structure garners offence from this lack of advocacy. K affs are great when they give me very clear offence to vote off of.
Framework: fw interps are the models of debate that how to play the game in round and out of round. i think FW is perfectly fine to run. i dont think it is INHERENTLY violent but as with pretty much everything, you can convince me it is. because you are presenting different styles to the game, you should focus on pitching it to me by winning some external impact, weighing, garnering offences from DAs to competing models, etc etc.
I default fairness as a terminal impact. you can also convince me it doesnt matter/exist.
for people running FW-I think it's "safe" for you to run it against me. impact calculus is good here and you should explain how the aff the can access their pedagogy under your model of debate. tvas are important (despite being defense at the end of the day) and they dont have to be run as actual CPs.
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 better, but I understand that's not always possible. in this case a well-written story of potential abuse will be enough for me to vote on the shell. Impact something to Fairness, education, 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.
theory defaults (ask if you dont see any here)
-(ld) aff gets to make plans
-(ld) afc is bad
-(ld) RVIs are bad in general (2NR RVIs and 1AR RVIs).
-(ld) disclosure is good. For me disclosure means tags, citation, with first 3 and last 3 words. If you read disclosure theory against someone who has at least done that for a time suck then I will, reluctantly, will be more willing to vote on a RVI.
-(ld) contingent standards bad
-(ld) neg should defend the prohibition of the resolution rather than just proving its permissible.
CPs: When it comes to CP theory, it really should be decided by the debaters. This means i wont give too much leeway towards the affs that don't make good theory arguments about the CPs that are cheating since, if they are cheating, you should be able to make me notice that ASAP. CPs themselves should be as specific as possible and you should tell me why it solves the aff completely or well enough that i should vote on it given a DA to the aff or something off of case. perms of CPs are probably not advocacies (lol). judge kick is not free, tell me 2 pls if u want it gone off the flow.
cp theory defaults
-neg gets PICs
-condo is good
-multiple worlds good
-int fiat, 50 state fiat w/o solvency adv, some random condition cp, consult, delay cps are probably bad.
LD Framework/Value&VC 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 and you should just focus on giving me a standard to weigh on rather than extending single word that in 99% of LD rounds will never be important. To clarify you dont HAVE to present a normative ethical theory in front of me (your weighing mechanism can draw from other philosophical/academic disciplines other than ethics), just dont be surprised if you lose the framework debate when you extended a value without it being contextualized by some actual philosophy that youre reading. In other words, focus on your WHOLE FRAMEWORK position and its weighing mechanism instead of extending a word even if they "dropped it."
LD "Tricks": Go for them. Triggers should be in the 1AR, dont try to cheat out a new impact in the 2AR. If you want to blow up a blip in the 1AR you better hope i see it (send it in the doc or slow down).
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. FOR EXAMPLE, even if a util case is winning risk of offence of some huge impact, if the opposing debate wins that Kantian ethics is true and is only MARGINALLY losing the case debate, i disregard the util offence and vote for kant. 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. mind you this is just a default, if you want me to prioritize case more- just say epistemic modesty good and defend it in ur underview or whatever.
LD Truth-testing: Truth-Testing does NOT mean that implementation of the plan is excluded when weighing the aff. That being said, Truth-testing can and, let's be real here, usually sets up an affirmative burden that excludes fiating a plan (thats why it's strategic lol). When this happens, opposing debaters should read and defend comparative worlds good as a framing issue before reading DAs,CPs, or any arg with post-fiat implications. Or they can read truth-testing flows their side/read a kritik/theory. The reason why i'm explaining this here is that i've seen too many debates where people just read typical off case positions against affs that clearly do not defend aff post-fiat. do not make this mistake.
DAs: Be specific as possible to the aff and make sure you do impact calc/turns the aff analysis. this also applies to case debate
Ks: Make concise O/V that simultaneously can explain the confusing jargon behind denser critical positions. K debate gets exponentially better the more specific line by line analysis is done with the aff. Impact calc is important here too as well as winning a "ethics"/"u dont get a plan"/"pre-fiat" FW to make it the biggest piece of offence in the round. kicking the alt is viable as long as you can generate sufficient uniqueness. Permutations to Ks should be detailed and how the permutation will happen in the world of the aff should be given sufficient explanation. Net benefits to permutations here would also be nice. By default, I think that the aff should get to weigh the 1AC vs the K. "No perms in a method debate" isn't too convincing imo.
E V I D E N C E: 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, if it undoubtedly says B then I will view it as suspect and depending on the situation will give more leeway to negative arguments against the specific misread card.
Conceded Arguments are 100% true. Arguments that are too late are never true and are ignored unless you can justify new args given in-round circumstances.
things introduced outside of the debate round (personal stuff) will be ignored by me. leave me alone.
Arguments like: "This is LD not policy," aren't arguments and are a waste of time.
What did I go for in high school?????? Not sure why this really matters but people but this on paradigms so i guess i will. In LD i read a ton of Kant and critical positions on aff and and on neg I usually went for pretty much all args (case, da, cps, K, T, theory). In other words, I was flex on neg, phil heavy on Aff.
PF Debate paradigm
pls READ: 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) produces the best consequences (so basically utilitarianism) and if thats not applicable, whoever wins their arguments under an offence/defense 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.
I won't auto down plans/CPs: I feel like a lot of times PFers run plans/CPs anyways and just frame them without using debate terminology (ex: voting pro means you dont do an alternative or there is an opportunity cost with a better alternative) so I think running them is perfectly fine. Also in general, I dont really know how to evaluate "vote them down bc NSDA rules lololol." It's hard for me to evaluate the offence/defense of an appeal to authority by itself so if you want to make this argument just go for a plans bad theory shell. to summarize, you can run plans. against a plan if you want to accuse them of cheating, run theory and defend a model of PF debate where plans dont exist and show me why it's better besides just saying "NSDA said so."
Theory: If youre going to run theory, please do it properly. Look at the LD/policy paradigm above for my defaults/thoughts on theory. I dont know much about PF paradigm issues that well but ill put some theory defaults based on what little I have seen.
Paraphrasing is silly and bad for debate. I wont auto-down you or give you lower speaker points if you read a case with paraphrased text but I think it would be better if you just cut cards and read them. If you want to talk about a card outside of reading it's text write analytics and read them after you read the card.
No RVIs by default. I will admit I think getting one will be easier in PFD than in other debate formats.
everything else is the same as my theory defaults for LD/cx basically.
Marina Leventis Paradigm
I competed nationally for Colleyville Heritage in PF debate for four years.
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 (email@example.com) / Updated for end of seasons UK ToC/Nats, etc.
*For virtual tournaments I require that you start an email chain
August 2016 - June 2018: Plano West Debate
August 2018 - June 2019: Hebron High School Assistant Coach (PF)
June 2019 - Present: Colleyville Heritage Assistant Coach (PF)
PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS (Currently WIP: Check back later):
If you plan on reading progressive arguments, you should read this regardless or not if you've had me before the 2020-2021 season. I've changed a lot of my views and stances
Note for Camp: Unless the other team agrees to practice debating these arguments, please keep camp practice rounds substance based.
Strike me if:
o You paraphrase with no cut cards
o Extend by author name (As in only the author name and no content)
o You rely on spreading quantity>quality and collapse to blips your opponents don't catch
o 30's theory (You get double 26's)
-I try to be as tech as possible on substance. If an argument is dropped, it becomes 100% true in the context of the round. Exceptions for abusive scenarios (reference above)
-Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first
-On a purely tech perspective, I would agree that winning a link chain with no responsive terminal or mitigatory defense grants 100% probability of the impact scenario you advocate for. I am willing to evaluate said args since tech>truth demands it but I might make facial expressions because I don't think it's a very educational strategy.
-If it doesn't have a warrant, it's not an argument. Analytical warrant > unwarranted card
-The first time you read an argument you need to read a warrant. I'm fairly attentive during speeches and flow everything you say - not just the tag. Chances are I'll catch the warrant. If you introduce an argument without a warrant, we're going to have a problem
-All offense generating arguments need to have an impact. If you don't extend an impact, I'm not voting on it.
-If I'm being honest, I hardly ever vote on turns because most teams don't do the necessary legwork for me. Extending one piece of dropped evidence and saying vote here won't cut it.
-I hesitate to say this but weighing and collapsing may not be essential to winning my ballot. It depends on the round. However, if you choose to not weigh and/or go for everything, your speaks will suffer.
-Backhalf extensions of defense should include extensions of the implication(s) as to how said argument interacts with the opponent offense. If all you do is extend a one line blip claim, I tend to waive it off as non-responsive.
-I only flow debate proper. In other words, I don't pay much attention to cross. If something happens say it in speech
-Second rebuttal needs to cover turns.
-Summary and Final mirror/parallel.
-All backhalf extensions need warrants; If you are trying to generate offense you also need an impact extension
-All case level responses in rebuttal. No new defense or turns on the opponent case in summary
-Summary extends the full arg (UQ, Link, Internal Link, Impact). No excuses to not develop arguments with three minutes. Final can just be warrant impact
-All defense you go for in final needs to be in summary. It better stay the same between both speeches. If your mitigation pops up as terminal defense in final it goes out the window for me.
-Generally speaking, no new evidence in second summary onward. You should be collapsing as the round progresses, not introducing new arguments. This is also to encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.
-No new weighing in second final unless no other weighing has been done in the round.
-If you're kicking something you A) must do it by explicitly conceding defense the opponents have read and B) must do it in the speech right after whatever defense you're conceding was read
-In real-time, person to person debate, I can handle PF speed okay. Please do not spread paraphrased evidence because it's hot garbage to flow and nobody should have to deal with it. Understand that it is a virtual tournament and connection issues may hinder usual abilities to flow fast. Proceed with caution. I'll clear if I need it.
-Public forum is a debate event. Not an individual event or interpretation event. It is debate. Barring any offensive comments or behavior, the only thing that matters are the arguments that you make. I don't care about how you choose to debate, I don't care what you wear, and I really couldn't care about how pretty you speak unless I can't understand you. Speaks will be given based on argumentation and strategy.
-Severe misconduct will tank your speaks, goes as low as loss zero points depending on severity.
-Don't expect a 30's. I wouldn't even necessarily expect 29's unless you debate well. If I were to give a ballpark estimate I'd say my season average is a high 27.
Speaker Point Bonuses
-Disclosure holistically is a good practice but the way it is being conducted right now is suboptimal. I understand that some teams feel like it puts them at a disadvantage. Thus, I will give each speaker a .5 speaker point bump if you disclose on the NDCA wiki for prioritizing educational norms over wins and losses.
-Since it looks like 3 minutes summaries are around to stay, I will give summary speakers an opportunity to earn bonus points. Summary once was (by far) the hardest technical speech to give and was most rewarding to debaters who could efficiently condense their content in two minutes. I will reward debaters who are able to give effective summaries in less than the allotted three minute time restraint. Do not think this means speed through blippy arguments - think about ways you can maximize your efficiency without giving up your argument quality.
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
I'm a pretty traditional judge. In CX, I want to see that you have a strong case and you've addressed every hole the Neg has tried to poke in it with legit evidence, not blip theoretical arguments. Same for the Neg. Use their case or extension evidence to combat their plan, not your opinions.
In LD, I'm pretty similar. I love evidence more than random "analytical" arguments. I wasn't an LD debater though, so give me clear voters and impact calc in your rebuttals and you may sway me pretty easily.
I also care a lot about how what you're practicing in debate translates to "the real world". Keeping that in mind..here's what I'm usually looking for regarding speaks and general etiquette of the debate:
1. Stay Organized - Give roadmaps and follow them! It will help you and your judge immensely. Also, I will never tell you you are "too line-by-line". Line-by-line is what I'm looking for - with the exception, of course, of CPs, disads, etc.
2. Speed - It's fine - I just don't really see the point in it. If you can't get your point across clearly, it's way less likely I'm going to flow your arguments well. Once I'm confused, who knows how the rounds going to go... It's also super distracting to lay judges that aren't used to it. I also just think it's important to learn to speak clearly - not to read quickly!
3. BE NICE TO EACH OTHER. Seriously, be respectful. Debate is about defending a stance, not outsassing another high school student.
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 multiple 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.
Read advocacy and interpretation texts slowly and twice if you want me to get them. If I don't get the text written down, or I miss the first couple solvency points because you won't slow down, that is on you.
I probably won't vote on presumption or terminal defense. I'd rather vote on some marginal risk of offense somewhere else on the flow if that's an option. The exception to that is procedurals - if the team meets the interp, it goes away.
Speaker points – I hate being bored. You'll get better speaks for a new and interesting strategy even if it isn't perfectly polished like the exact same Marx shell that's been around for 20 years. It should go without saying, but I heavily deduct points for being racist/sexist/ableist etc or fueling systems of oppression in round.
Texts - Please read interps and plan/cp/alt texts slow. You are responsible for making sure that I get it on my flow somehow, and if I can't get it down because you don't slow down, you might be at a disadvantage. I'll do my best to get it down as closely to the original text as possible.
Advantages/Disads – I think linear disads are a solid strategy because you can weigh the magnitude of your link against the probability of theirs, and with some half decent probability framing you'll probably be able to outweigh any unwarranted extinction scenario.
CPs - Go ahead and be condo, read a PIC or a delay counterplan, or anything else as long as you feel like you can answer theory if they read it.
Theory – I default to competing interpretations, though a brief explanation of what reasonability means will make me much more likely to vote on it. I'll vote on RVIs as long as they're reasonably well explained. While I typically don't vote on terminal defense, I will vote on a "we meet" as the only answer to a procedural - I think that a very marginal chance of a team violating an interp isn't sufficient to drop them.
Kritiks – Much of my career was spent going for the K. While I am more likely to be familiar with your lit, I am also likely to know if your K is bad. If you're just not good at or comfortable with K debate, I would overwhelmingly prefer you read your heg disad or whatever because frankly it will be a much better debate.
When going for a K, I would strongly prefer that the 2NC/1NR collapse to one link, and make internal link analysis about how that leads to their impact. For example, if your link to cap is individualism, explain how individualism specifically leads to ecological destruction (or whatever your impact to cap is). Skipping that part means I will be pretty skeptical of your impact claims and allows the PMR to leverage the perm and link turns to outweigh the links much more easily.
I'm actually pretty well disposed to arguments that the neg must specify the actor of the alt or other aspects of the solvency mechanism; K alts are often pretty OP in terms of their ability to fiat solvency. A lot of K alts are straight up theoretically abusive/ object fiat and if you want to read an alt like that, you should have to defend why that's ok. Similarly, if you want to go for solvency that revolves around endorsement or in-round action by the judge you probably need a lot of warrants for why that's going to spill over to out of round impacts, and absent those warrants your "K solves the aff" arguments will probably not get very far.
AFF Ks - I'm a big fan of topical K affs that creatively engage with or interpret the topic. Untopical K affs are also fine. If you're going for truth over tech, I would appreciate a brief explanation of how I determine what is true.
I will vote for framework against K affs but it's always fun to see more creative/specific answers that engage with the internal warrants of the PMC. I probably have a comparatively low threshold for arguments that teams should be able to weigh their aff or K against theory, but I won't do the work to make cross applications and will default to treating procedurals as a priori absent arguments otherwise.
Perms – In general, I’m more hesitant to vote on perms in K debates than many other judges seem to be; since the alternative only has to generate uniqueness, I need specific warrants for why the permutation would shield the links based on what the perm actually would look like. Since the links are typically a question of the desirability of the permutation, rather than just its possibility, simply stating that the permutation could happen is not sufficient to win that it should.
High School LD:
I'm fine with speed, plans, counterplans, kritiks, performances, theory, etc. Debaters are the ones who decide what debate should look like. I disclose unless you prefer I don't, I don't care if you stand or sit, and I'm fine if you use your cx as flex (as long as your opponent agrees).
Slow if your opponent asks you to slow.
My CX philosophy probably answers a lot of your questions about my evaluation of specific arguments.
I almost never call for cards; if you didn't extend and contextualize the warrants to the round I'm not going to dig through your evidence to see if I can find a way to do that for you. The exception is when there's a disagreement between the debaters about what the actual content of a card says, or a piece of evidence seems to be making an especially improbable claim. Evidence for me is more about justifications for why something is true, rather than whether you have a source that says it's true.
Either give me a copy of your advocacy/plan/alt/CP/interpretation texts or slow down and read them twice. Just because you flashed it to your opponent doesn't mean I have it.
Plans/ Counterplans: Frankly I wish I saw more of them in LD
Value/criteria: I look at the criterion/framework debate first to establish which impacts matter. If your value is something other than morality/justice, please explain what it has to do with the resolution rather than just why that thing is good in a vacuum, otherwise it's incredibly hard to evaluate how it fits in with the evaluation of the round.
I probably cut or helped cut whatever brief you got your cards out of so I'll know if you're just regurgitating arguments you don't understand. It will affect your speaker points.
High school PF:
I don't flow crossfire; if you want me to evaluate evidence, bring it up in a speech. Evidence for me is more about justifications for why something is true, than whether you have a source that says it's true.
Extensions: I accept arguments that aren't explicitly extended in the summary to be brought up in the final focus (shadow extensions) as long as the other team didn't respond to it. However, if you concede arguments against it, you can't address those arguments.
I prefer if you collapse to one issue in your final focus; I think it's strategic to choose your strongest point and spend your full two minutes explaining why it's the most important, and I won't penalize you for kicking out of other arguments.
Please do impact weighing - tell me what's most important and why. If you force me to arbitrarily decide what I, personally, think is most important you run the risk that I will make a decision you dislike.
The one-line, unwarranted claims that pass for frameworks in PF are probably not going to have a large influence on my decision unless you warrant your framework with cards or at least analytics. I will default to evaluating impacts that hurt all people according to a basic utilitarian calculus, and students typically have more success spending their time on impact calculus rather than framework debate.
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
Hello! I am currently a student at UT Austin and a former debater at Plano West Senior HS. I have competed and judged rounds of Public Forum, Congress and Extemp. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Congressional Debate Paradigm:
1. Argumentation: I am most focused on the logic and content of your speeches. As a judge, the easier it is for me to understand your arguments and their clash, the easier it is for me to evaluate your performance. Evaluate the larger context of your arguments and weigh impacts. I appreciate a good argument whether I support it or not, as a judge, I try my best to stay unbiased. I will not rank debaters that fail to support and strengthen arguments with evidence. And please weigh as much as you can.
2. Content (rebutting and extending): I expect refutations to be strong and supported by both logic and evidence (if necessary). If you are expanding on a previous speaker’s arguments try to highlight how you are furthering their contention. I do not find it necessary for later speakers to say the names of previous speakers, but if it helps to clarify the evidence or arguments you are referring to, I would recommend doing so. Do not restate previous speakers’ arguments as your own, that is not extending and will not help you. I expect speakers to have rebuttals and responses in the round that are backed by logic or evidence. If you do not fully explain the links in your refutation argument then it is not possible to weigh it.
3. Participation: Be an active member in the round with strong questions in cx and make your speeches relevant. Congress is a participation event, and failing to participate (speaking or questioning) will hurt your ranking. Do not use cx as a time to seem like you are participating in the round with fluff questions. I will only take note of strong questioning which requires paying attention. Make motions when necessary and try not to waste time.
4. Speaking: I appreciate a good and clear speaker, but pretty speaking isn’t enough to be successful in the round. Try your best to weigh and refute clearly and explain everything thoroughly. As a judge, I do not want to focus on your speaking style so try your best to have a speaking personality that isn’t a distraction but rather a strength.
I highly value respect for one another in congress rounds, so please remember that a strong debater is not a rude one.
Let’s have some fun, I can’t wait to see what yall come up with. Congrats on making TOC!
Chetan Reddy Paradigm
I graduated from Plano West in 2017.
GENERAL: Tech over truth, but there's a line. Warrant your arguments well. I won't default, ever.
Speed: Go for it, but be clear. There's a difference between quality technical debate and card dumping.
Speaks: Usually pretty high. Strategy and quality argumentation matter more to me than persuasive speaking. Higher if you're funny.
Extensions: Second rebuttal does not need to respond to defense from first rebuttal, but must respond to turns. First summary does not need to extend defense that isn’t frontlined in the first rebuttal. Defense is sticky. Extensions need to have a clear citation, and short crystallization of the warrant AND impact before I can vote on it. I'll give you marginal offense with a poorly extended impact, but no offense from a poorly extended warrant.
Warrants: The first time you warrant an argument, I will take that as your warrant. This doesn't mean that I will vote for an argument with poor warrant extension, but if the first time you provide/explain the warrant is not in the first speech you read the argument, I will not consider the argument.
Progressive Debate: Do it well.
If all else fails, I’ll answer specific questions before round.
Naveen Santhosh Paradigm
Naveen Santhosh // Seven Lakes '16; TAMU '20 // Updated June 2020
I competed in public forum debate for all 4 years of high school.
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? Yes pls.
I am okay with speed. Being nice and funny helps your scores.
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: Not good.
Have fun! Good luck!
Kelsey Sawyer Paradigm
First and foremost, thank you for participating in this incredible sport and 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: Plano East HS, class of 2011; University of Texas at Austin, class of 2015. My HS debate career focused primarily on FX, SC, and ended with 1.5 years of CX (2A/1N, former Michigan camper). I also briefly competed in college extemp. Over the past ~5 years I have judged extensively across Houston and Dallas circuits in all debate events, including recently for TFA State and NSDA Nationals. I currently work in management consulting.
CORE PARADIGM: Naturally, details will differ based on the event, but generally speaking I am a games player judge. In each round, I want to see demonstration of 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: Knock your heart out, although more arguments just means more for you to defend. If you drop it, then so does your opponent. Please please don't make disingenuous arguments to waste time. Naturally, it is better to make one or two very strong arguments than to make ten weak ones.
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 grown more open-minded to Ks and other non-traditional arguments. However, please don't abuse this style of argument to avoid building an actual rebuttal or engaging. Topicality and theory arguments are fine - I view this as a core part of the heart and governance of this event - but it is not a catch-all strategy. PICs are fine too.
I look forward to hearing your insights! Good luck!!
(updated January 2020)
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 ðŸ˜ž.
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 ðŸ˜
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 do debate in high school or college.
I have been coaching speech and debate for nearly 20 years. I focus on speech events and PF. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."
In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters end up talking more about how the debate is going down rather than the actual issues at hand. Try your best to avoid debating debate and debate the resolution.
Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.
In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.
If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.
Skyler Walker Paradigm
Background: I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I did two years of policy, two years of LD. I also compete in Parli on the collegiate level.
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. 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: 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 a resolution-centric analysis of the round [Aff must prove the resolution true to win the round, (however they wish to attempt to do so is up to them)] if I am not given and convinced by a clear framework. This means that solvency and topicality can be RDFs for me and topical CPs are a no-go unless I am given a different framework to evaluate the round by. I am NOT a stock issues judge.
I expect to hear clear standards and voters if you want me to vote on your framework.
I evaluate framing/pre-fiat implications 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. Some judges say that they just want to be be able to catch the taglines and sources to your cards, but that seems silly to me. I want to understand the evidence you are citing. If I can’t, why even read it in the first place?
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 will not compare and contrast warrants for you, you doing that yourself is what a debate is. 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.
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
My paradigm is semi-long. If you don't want to read the entire thing, just read this one
Some things that are very important to me (tl;dr):
1. Quality > quantity (card dump bad unless actually interactive)
2. All arguments must be sufficiently warranted and must be interactive
3. All parts of any offense must be extended to access impacts (uniquess, link, internal link, etc//frontlining =/= implicit warrant extension)
4. Weighing is so important. However, I hate noncomparative weighing (we win on magnitude because 50 mil ppl die). If you do this type of weighing, you might as well just not weigh.
5. Pull up your evidence quickly if you don't want speaks to suffer.
6. Defense = sticky
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.***(emphasized after Plano West semis 2019)
^this is the most brainless form of debate. You're not a "good debater" if you just spread a blockfile without even thinking about what your arguments mean.
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 downvote, 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. If no explicit framework is agreed upon, I'll default to a cost-benefit analysis. Make sure you're linking whatever offense you go for back into your framework. I don't care if you forget to explicitly extend your framework, but if you don't explicitly link your offense back into your framework, then I'm not doing that work for you.
If no one has a question please just sit down and cut crossfire short. If you end it early, 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.
edit: ur not cool if ur team takes up the entire 3 minutes in crossfire talking. that's just abusive and foolish.
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.
edit: Please have your evidence ready when your opponents call for it. It's absolutely absurd that anyone has to spend almost 15 cumulative minutes in a round pulling up evidence because "the wifi is spotty". If you aren't cutting your evidence, at least have the decency to download it before tournament. If you spend more than ~5 minutes trying to pull up one piece of evidence, your speaks will suffer considerably.
I prefer a big picture summary and voter final focus. If you choose to go line by line, you better collapse I won't vote on anything if it's not in both of these speeches. Parallelism is good! Also, offense isn't *implicitly* flowed over, so it's not enough to just frontline and then restate your impacts. Make sure you're extending internal warrants as well as frontlining if you want full access to impacts.
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!