Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational
2019 — Colleyville, TX/US
Daniel Adkins Paradigm
Nida Ali Paradigm
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I debate varsity policy at Colleyville Heritage. I'm usually the 1N/2A. If you have any specific questions before the round, ask me!
This would be a good paradigm to look at before the round : https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=shahina&search_last=
If you can make a joke about shahina chatur, her paradigm, or say the phrase "big sad" i'll give you an extra speaker point!
Shahina Chatur Paradigm
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Colleyville ‘21 (literally half of the vcx team). I'm usually the 1A/2N. If you have any specific questions before the round, ask me!!
I'm usually judging policy and occasionally World Schools. If I end up judging LD, you can probably just refer to my paradigm. For PF / WSD refer to this one, but also refer to mine for general speech stuff. (ask me any questions you have about this)
tl;dr: I'm good with whatever you want to run, just make sure you explain them well enough so I know what's being run and why it should matter.
have fun!! you're going to miss this next year :(
** Specifics **
Tech > Truth
Go for it. I NEED impact calc! Do the risks matter? Do they outweigh the aff's impacts? I don’t know, you tell me
These are great, but you NEED to explain why it solves better than the plan. Don't just say "cOuNtEr pLaN sOLvEs" and expect me to vote on it. Same thing with perms too; tell me why the cp can or cannot be passed with the plan.
Ks are Fun. I like hearing why I should reject the idealism of the status quo. I've read most of the general K lit, and have a general idea as to what the main idea is, but I have debated more fem and psychoanalysis (Freud and McGowan) lit in my past 3 years of debate. This shouldn't stop you from running the K that you were planning to. That being said, don't just assume I know EVERYTHING about the philosophies of Nietzsche or Bataille. Explain the idea behind the K and how that should apply to the round. PLEASE give me reasons why the alt solves better than the plan and why it matters
I LOVE good T debates. I hate bad T debates. I need to know why the other team violates and why that hurts you in the round, not some wack reason like "their interp makes the round less fun”.
** Misc **
I start out at a 27 and work my way from there. You probably won't be getting anything lower than a 25, unless you're rude in round.
If you can make me laugh I’ll bump your speaks... Any jokes about any Judy Zhu, Alex Lee (if you don't know who he is, he dresses like a k-pop star), Katelynne Shadman or any Colleyville kids will result in +.5 speaker point. I’m also cool with sarcasm/shade when appropriate, just don't be rude :)
Being a jerk to your opponents will be rewarded with really low speaks (as said before)... Saying really stupid things like racism good, sexism good, genocide good, etc. will be rewarded with FAT L
Speed is fine. Just be clear enough with tags so I can flow them. If you try spreading and I can't understand you, it'll be a big oof. As Mr. Huston says "if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so."... Just do whatever you're comfortable with
I'm good with open cx, but don’t take advantage of that... I mean don't answer all the questions for your partner -- but if you need help, asking your partner to take a question isn’t the end of the world. I will flow cross-x, You still need to bring up things that happen in CX like normal arguments
Uhh...Okay, obviously you should be the one giving the speech, and I’m only going to flow what you say -- if it's directional prompting (i.e. 'don't read that' or 'move on to ___'), then I'm good :)
Please don't be like my novices and forget to time your speech/cx/prep; it's really sad when I look up from my flow and figure out they've been giving a 1AC for 10 minutes (I promise they don't do that anymore)
lol if you count down from 10 to start your speech I'll laugh, but it's fine; my novices did that too. (I don't condone counting down)
Elizabeth Clayton Paradigm
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
You can also email me with any post round questions or whatever. I usually reply within the day.
PSA- I cannot keep a straight face. Don't let that change how you debate.
Five Minutes Before the Round
Do whatever you do best. Convince me who is the best team. I will walk into the round thinking debate is a game but if that changes in the debate I will view the round through the lens that the teams tell me (i.e. debate isn't a game, judges are policymakers, the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debaters, etc.) Good luck!
Some Stuff About Me
I'm also a two-time (consecutive) state champion, and this is my seventh year in policy; I've debated a couple hundred rounds (yeah no joke, i'm committed), judged a good amount of times, and have been around debate long enough to understand most if not all the stuff you could talk about. I'd like to think I'm pretty relaxed, so don't ask to go to the bathroom or move or breathe, just go ahead.
Okay, back to debate
CX: open. Email: not prep. Speed: yes, but I will call clear if I don't understand you.
Performance: absolutely, but don't just read it to be a Cool K Debater. Application to the argument is really important.
Aff framework: also cool.
I read settler colonialism, black nihilism, or baudrillard usually. Sometimes primary source deleuze and guattari, dark deleuze, and psychoanalysis if the debate is spicy. That probably tells you something about how I look at kritikal debate.
Death, high theory, and just generally weird K's are cool. I like hearing unconventional stuff because it's an interesting side of debate that you usually don't get. That being said, I'm not going to be enthusiastic to vote for you if you really obviously don't care about debating it and just want to confuse the other team. Debate them well. Also, if you read one of these I will hold you to a very, VERY high standard on the link debate. EXPLAIN THE ALT. Don't be edgy and read death of the world and then not be able to explain it.
Three things: link, alternative, and impact. If all of them aren't in the 2NR that gives the 2AR a huge change to sway the ballot.
Case specific links with good articulation/argumentation will basically write my ballot.
I won't do any extra work for you on the flow and I will vote on what you tell me to vote on. Impact framing debates are good in terms of weighing structural violence vs nuke war stuff.
I want to hear articulation. For example, if you say, "vote neg on structural violence," I will flow that but what is the significance? How does it outweigh the aff? If you answer those questions for me in your speech I won't have to ask them when I'm writing my ballot.
P.S. Buzzwords don't do anything for you. I'm looking at you, D&G debaters.
Run all the DA's that you want. Politics DA's are good. Uniqueness, Link, and Impact should be in the 2NR.
Impacts should have diversity. 3 DA's with the same impact is honestly really boring, and there's a burden on the neg to prove which one happens first, how do the others interact with it, and it really comes down to pointless semantics.
CP theory: also good.
Explain the CP's mutual exclusivity and why the net benefit is better than the impacts and advantages of the aff.
Do sufficient work on the net benefit.
Answer key questions like how the perm doesn't work or links back to the DA, how the CP is better, etc.
Explain solvency deficits to the perm.
T/ Theory/ Framework
All that good stuff: nice.
T is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Extra T and effects T are convincing because they're often dropped on the 2AC. Make sure these debates aren't too messy. Otherwise it's really up for debate on these.
Impact analysis on theory will go far with me if you explain how it changes the debate. Impact comparison is probably good.
Policy Affs: tubular.
They're cool. If you read an overview in the 2AC, don't read it as fast as you read a card. I want to hear the process of the aff so I know what's up. The point of an overview isn't to extend the aff. The point is to tell me what the aff does so the line by line is easier.
Pre-1AC, I like to know how many pieces of paper I'm going to need. Post-1AC, tell me what advantages you're going on.
K Affs: totally.
I've ran K affs. They're cool, however, that doesn't mean I won't vote on framework. Make sure to do impact comparison.
One Last Thing...
Debate is a game, so let's make it more interesting. Tell me which sticker on my laptop is your favorite and I'll add some speaks (only a little bit, games have to be fair).
Darren Collins Paradigm
I am currently an attorney. I debated for four years in cross-examination policy debate at Clear Lake High School and was competitive at the state level (top finish was third at TFA state). I judged high school debate throughout college, but did not debate in college. I recently returned to judging in 2016, with an equal mix of CX and PF.
I consider myself a tabula rasa judge, and will vote on anything if given a proper rationale and justification. I consider debate a game. That said, I am more familiar with policy arguments then critical ones. I place a high value on analytics and people who actually apply cards and arguments instead of reading large banks of cards with little application or reasoning. Please weigh the round or present me with a framework under which you believe the round should be judged. Do not take tag lines at face value. Challenge evidence and internal links (CX/crossfires are a great opportunity to do this). Nothing is more frustrating then having to weigh cards/links/impacts that aren't really there but are never challenged by an opponent.
Speed is fine, but don't do speed for speed's sake. I believe speed can give people the ability to present many more positions and arugments and ultimately make the round more educational and enjoyable to judge. However, I have seen people spread who could have covered more ground by not spreading and people who become completely unintelligible when they pick up speed. If you aren't clear then I can't understand your arguments. Vary speed, tone, volume, or something else to differentiate between tags and cards, emphasize transitions, present important analysis, signpost, etc. If you are lynch-pinning your entire case on one card or a challenge to one card, it would probably benefit you (and certainly me) to make sure I understand the card completely.
Ks: I have voted on K arguments this year but make sure you explain the links well and place the argument in the context of the round for me. It is safe to say that these arguments may have a higher bar for me just because of less familiarity than what I have with traditional policy arguments.
Conditionality is fine as long as you can explain what it is accomplishing in a round (a test of competitiveness, etc.).
Be careful with flips. I have seen countless number of teams this year argue link flips and impacts flips against the same DA/Advantage, or go for and win a huge link flip but then separately argue that there will be no impact. Make sure you are telling a consistent story and don't shoot yourself in the foot. Sometimes you can go for too much.
T- I seem to be voting for T frequently as of late, but you need to make a strong argument and devote attention to it throughout the round. If you don't treat it seriously, don't expect me to. You must explain how it is impacting (or not impacting) the current round, as theoretical T arguments have less impact on me.
Be civil and professional. Passion is great, but avoid being mean-spirited.
Colton Gilbert Paradigm
I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way; I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge.
Include me on all email chains, please firstname.lastname@example.org
I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole
I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just to be running them, do not run your arguments if you don’t think they can win you the round!
I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim.
Saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me.
My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author’s use.
I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.
I see framework as slightly different from T so I evaluate it differently as well. Personally, I believe that framework is probably a form of policing. Just because that is my personal disposition doesn’t mean you can assert that in the round and win. You have to articulate what their form of policing is and what the impact to that policing is. If a team chooses to read an identity based argument then it is not my place to tell them this isn’t the space for them (I say that as a black male who judges debates).
Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.
These debates, for me, generally come down to an issue of fairness. K affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.
Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.
Emma Hawxby Paradigm
On T: I will vote on T if it is dropped by the affirmative; it is a prerequisite to the round and I believe if the aff is not topical then the round should not have happened. However, if the aff is reasonably topical and has answered T (with a we meet, a counter-interpretation, and counter-standards) then the neg should not go for T in the 2NR.
On K’s, I do believe a few can be run in novice (like capitalism or neoliberalism) but nothing much harder than that. Understand what the alt is trying to do before running it.
On theory (conditionality, aspec, etc.): if theory is brought up in the 2AC, I will weigh it in the round, but if the opposing team has reasonably answered it I won’t give it much thought.
On CPs: I’m ok with most CPs. There isn’t much you can do that I won’t buy, although I don’t like plan plus/plan minus counterplans, especially if the aff gives me a theory reason as to why I should reject the argument, but I will tolerate them.
On case: do not drop case in the 2AC, especially solvency. The case is the whole reason for the debate, and if the aff drops case, then there’s really nothing that they’re advocating for.
I will accept just about any impact as potentially viable. Impact calculus is accepted, if not encouraged. Try to persuade my why I should buy your impacts over your opponents, especially in the 2NR/2AR.
I do not like the negative running new off case in the neg block. It puts the aff at a structural disadvantage and is mostly dirty playing by the neg. Everything you need in the neg block should have been read in the 1NC and extended upon in the neg block.
Do not run new cards after the 1AR. Minimal cards should be read in the 1AR, but after that speech it should be all analysis.
Martha Lepore Paradigm
I am a former policy debate from Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana. I am currently a coach for Airline High School in Bossier City, Louisiana.
I am more likely to vote for a policy option than a Kritik or Kritikal Affirmative.
I have always liked a good Topicality debate as well as traditional disad/counterplan combos.
Ok with open cx, I want to be in on the e-mail chain because I cannot flow spreading as I once could. I will ask you to slow down or be clearer if I cannot hear/understand what you are saying.
I also do not tolerate post-rounding. If you would like feedback, you should listen respectfully and ask appropriate questions. Otherwise, your speaker points and ranks will be consequently impacted.
Nyasha Magocha Paradigm
First and foremost, do your best and have fun.
I'm cool with speed. However, I will call clear 3 times and after the third time, I will put my pen down and stop flowing
I'm a "tab" judge, I come in with a blank slate and you tell me what to vote for. I will not connect the dots and do the work for you.
Disads -I prefer specific links, it'll only help you out more in the debate. Impact calculus is very important, but you also have to make sure you win the internal link chain to get you to the impact in the first place. Impact framing is very important
CPs - It's important that you're actually competitive and there is
a nb to your CP.
Ks - I'm open to any Ks, but I will not do the work for you just because I understand what you're running. Even if your alternative is to reject the team I need to know why I should endorse it as a method to combat whatever impact you present. You need to contextualize the links to the world of the aff and explain how your alt has the ability to generate real material change.
T - I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, and you should impact out why your interp and method for evaluating topicality is good
Theory - I have a high threshold for theory, only run it if there is a clear unfair advantage in the debate.
Framework - I really enjoy K debates but this includes a defense of your framework for the round, whether it's a question of alt solvency or state engagement or whatever, impact it out.
K Affs- The same way it is with everything else, explain your argument and why I should care about it. I'm open to critiques of engagement practices, the resolution, the debate community, or whatever else you can come up with.
Lesley Tran Paradigm
Ryan Zlotky Paradigm
**If you pref Reid Zlotky (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=zlotky) you should probably strike me. Substantive roasts of his paradigm will earn up to +.5 speaks.
Senior at Greenhill School
put me on the chain: email@example.com
I try to judge debates with the least amount of intervention possible but I will vote for arguments that are incoherent or not explained within the debate. This means that generally tech>truth but only when the tech includes coherent warrants.
T vs teams that agree to be topical
I usually default to competing interpretations but will vote on reasonability if there is enough time spent on it and the Neg interpretation is clearly arbitrary. I may be a Greenhill 2A now but I am a 2N at heart and T was my favorite 2NR.
Framework vs teams that don't
Fairness is an impact but it needs to be explained correctly throughout the debate. Asserting "fairness is an intrinsic good" with no explanation will not win you these debates. That being said, if explained correctly, it will be very hard for the Negative to lose these debates in front of me. For the Aff to win they would probably need to win a DA to framework that is specific to the Aff and substantial defense. If I do not understand how the Affirmative can resolve any of their offense I will vote Negative on presumption.
Cps that compete off the mandate of the plan and have a net benefit are definitely good. Cps that compete off of immediacy are probably not ok but can be won if there is a card specific to the Aff. Advantage Cps are underutilized and multi-plank advantage Cps are definitely ok. 2NC CP amendments are justified only if the solvency deficit or add on was new in the 2AC/not based off of 1AC cards OR if it is clear there was a small mistake made in the CP text but the intention was clear.
I need to understand the K to vote for it. If the K has specific links and the alternative is well explained then they can be a great strategy, but if you plan on going for K tricks and generic state links I am not the judge for you
If you run a K that it is clear you do not understand I will not vote for you.