Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational
2019 — Colleyville, TX/US
Jugal Amodwala Paradigm
Hi I debated LD throughout high school at Westwood (2018), earned two career bids and qualified to the TOC. pls flash email@example.com
I've been coaching for Westwood since 2018.
In my year at Westwood we had a few debaters that competed a lot on the national circuit and since all five of us (rohith mandavilli, rishabh shah, dhruva mambapoor, and abby grifno) were coached by Rodrigo Paramo I think I share similar views to these people. I also agree with Bennett Eckert, Travis Fife, and Aaron Timmons.
If you're lazy some pref shortcuts:
LARP - 1
Theory/T - 1-3 (depending on the frivolity of the position)
Kritiks - 2
Phil - 2
Tricks - strike
I am NOT tabula rasa and I don't think anyone actually is.
I will ONLY say slow/clear TWICE and after that I'll stop flowing.
My favorite kind of debate was a simple plan/disad/cp debate because I think those brought about the most clash and in-depth evidence comparison at the high school level. That said, I don't want to hear you failing to go for a disad when you've never read one before.
I will not vote for anything I don't understand - I think I have a good grasp of the "generic K's" and Kant but beyond that some explanation might be necessary given I haven't read all of the literature. I think this is especially true for links and alternatives.
I am a very expressive person - I will constantly be making faces in round, think of them as you would like, but I would recommend just ignoring them.
I love a good case debate - challenge the aff's home turf.
I STRONGLY believe in disclosure - The only exception is if you are unaware of what the wiki is. Screenshots MUST be provided including TIME STAMPS.
I have a HIGH threshold for good evidence - I think it should be about your scenario and as specific as possible. If it's a politics disad or a time sensitive argument newer evidence from reliable sources prevails. If your evidence isn't particularly relevant it's likely I will discard it.
Evidence ethics challenges means the debate stops. No excuses. See Rodrigo's paradigm for more specific details for things I agree with.
I largely agree with Rodrigo regarding trigger warnings.
I treat theory/T as a kind of disad cp debate with the standards being disads to the aff's interp and the TVA being a CP of some kind. Please WEIGH! I need impact calc on the net benefits or I will probably throw out the shell.
If you intend to read 5+ cards on case, tell me to get another page for them. I haven't quite learned how to copy paste while flowing on paper.
I will wait until AFTER postrounding to give speaks - if you and/or your coach is rude then your speaks will suffer.
I don't recall anyone being too fast for me to understand (I watch school lectures on up to 4.5x speed) on evidence but for short analytics like theory standards you HAVE to go slower bc I can't write at light speed.
Clarity is a MUST, and debaters almost always think they're clearer than they actually are so maybe go slower.
In my opinion the most impressive debaters are able to beat fast opponents by being slow and efficient.
I will award speaks based on what I think your propensity to win the tournament is. If I'm confident you can win, you get a thirty, and it'll go down from there. It's likely that my standards or perception for what this is might be skewed and I will usually end up giving you lower than what your final record will end up being.
Efficiency and good strategy will bump u up.
Try not to 100% BS facts. If you say xyz is polling at 80% when they're actually polling at 40 you will lose speaks.
I WILL dock speaks for being rude and award speaks for being kind.
I appreciate numbering arguments (1. no link, 2. link turn, 3. perm) and labeling offs (next off - econ disad).
I love a good theory or T debate but clear standards need to be emphasized regardless of whether or not it's a potential abuse or in-round abuse claim.
I think potential abuse exists and can be an effective argument even if you have aff specific offense.
I think most theory shells that are based on CX are frivolous (ex. must list perms, must spec k over T, etc)
Counter interps and interps must be flashed before read.
I'm persuaded by disclosure, open source, and brackets - I don't believe these are frivolous as long as the argument is justified with a warrant.
If the 2nr is literally 6 mins of theory/T I think the aff implicitly gets an rvi. I see no benefit to forcing the aff extend the 1ac for ten seconds, and they had the last substance speech so the neg has functionally conceded substance.
I really LOVE specific and in-depth interps but try and make sure it still makes sense as a universal rule and as a sentence.
Dislike nebel T but am somewhat compelled by the latest article. That said, I still don't know what grammar is and the argument must be coherently explained. If I don't get your violation I can't vote on it.
Developed standards and voters are important and weigh between them if you want to have a good debate
I don't think a dictionary definition is mandatory but in T debates it will go a long ways - the more specific the definition the better. However, I am compelled by arguments saying that a counter interp is incomplete without them.
Interps and counter interps need to be complete statements. I treat them like plan texts since they are an attempt at defining a norm, so things like "Counter interp: let this aff in" are not real counter interps.
I strongly believe they should have solvency advocates
frameworks are a must
I'm not a fan of underviews filled with analytics - just read cards bruh
For whatever reason I'm more lenient on the existence of a solvency advocate here, that said having one could be relevant to theory debates
One condo is chill
Not a fan of judge kick and will only evaluate the arg if it's made in the 1NC
I think these are some of the most strategic arguments in debate but I am persuaded by well crafted theory shells saying they're cheating.
The way I've always thought about philosophical frameworks is the same as Kritiks. There should be a way of explaining the world, a link to the topic, and some sort of impact.
I love util but in my senior year I branched out to deontologists like Kant and Hobbes.
Miss me with your justice v morality args - I don't care
Not a fan of Floating PIKS - I think they're cheating but if your opponent doesn't ask it's fair game
I was a big fan of the security and cap K's but specific links make a world of difference.
Unwarranted evidence is far too common in kritik debates. I find it frustrating when the NC is basically just 5 minutes of glorified impact cards.
I have a high threshold for afropessimism based arguments. I think they're often read poorly in LD and commodified, therefore I'm persuaded by the argument that white people shouldn't be advocating for it.
NOT a fan of generic links like the state is anti-black - the more specific the better
Carded responses are my favorite but I understand that the 1AR is time crunched
Kritik's must have SOME form of framing and I believe that the ROTB might precede case but this must be clearly justified.
Big fan of framework against kritiks done similarly to how Policy does it.
go for it as long as it isn't something that could potentially endanger someone
I do think all of your actions must be justified
I'm strongly compelled by T-Framework, and think plans are good for debate
no. A burden will result in an almost instant loss. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you outside of round but I think practices that focus on winning from blippy analytics are bad for debate.
I define a "trick" as a preempt that prohibits an action, like the neg can't read counter plans. Things like aff gets rvis or allow 1ar theory are ok, but annoying.
Blake Andrews Paradigm
firstname.lastname@example.org email with questions or for email chain purposes.
update for St. Marks - 1. I've only judged a handful of rounds on the current topic/ I'm not familiar with the literature. 2. Please slow down on tags and analytics. 3. Please extend warrants for arguments.
-I have a second email attached to tabroom that also includes more of my judging record.
Update Nov 2018- I have noticed more hostility in the debate community and would strongly prefer debaters be civil towards one another. I don't want this statement to discourage individual's from making jokes or having fun in round, but I don't tolerate overly confrontational behavior, hostile behavior, racism, sexism, and discrimination in round. I reserve the right to decrease speaks and in the most extreme cases drop a debater for creating a hostile environment.
Some general information
-I enjoy judging high quality K/ Performance debaters and am reading more critical literature in my free time.
- I am normally somewhat familiar with each topic.
- I am probably not the best judge for hardcore T and theory debates(that doesn't mean I won't evaluate these arguments, but I would prefer the debate be focused elsewhere if possible).
-I am ambivalent about disclosure theory, but will vote on it and have voted on it in the past if won in round.
If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best to articulate my decision at the end of each round and highlight a few things each debater can improve upon.
Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well)
I took this from M. Overing's paradigm and I think it sums up what I want debaters to do in a round pretty well.
"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."
Side note ignore any grammar problems I’m writing this quickly.
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015
prior:George Washington University ( where I briefly competed in college CX and went to some local and regional tournaments)
Parish Episcopal (competed in LD and extemp every now and then. Go to my LD section for more about my high school debate career)
Paperless stuff- I don’t count time for flashing evidence, but will severely dock speaks if someone is stealing prep time. When someone else is flashing nobody should be taking prep.
LD- When I debated I was in out rounds at TFA state, Churchill, Stanford, Colleyville, and Alta (for LD). I will attempt to keep this as short as possible. Speed is fine and policy arguments are also fine. I mostly ran util and semi critical positions in high school, but I'm fine with whatever type of argument you want to go for( Ie go for the CP/DA if you want to or the K... I'm cool with either strat). Some things I like, but don't often seen in LD include---> debaters conceding to arguments, but still explaining why they win the round, weighing offense( i.e. scope, magnitude, probability etc), and K's with really specific links to the aff. I will increase speaks for debaters who conceded to arguments, weigh well, or run K's with specific and clear links to the aff ( rather than generic backfile link cards)
Policy – Ive judge a handful of rounds on the 2016-2017 high school topic, but I don't judge often( I primarily judge LD) . If you have questions before the round and want to know anything specific I will do my best to articulate how I view debate and give you any insights into my paradigm. Aff should probably be topical, but its possible to win that T doesn’t matter. . I haven't read a ton of critical literature, but I'm familiar with most of the authors K debaters use regularly. Specific DA’s and counterplans are great. Kritiks that link to the aff are great. Link of omission K’s are not. Word pics, and other random stuff is fine. I'm a big picture kind of guy. Please explain what the role of the ballot is and you should be in good shape. Also, I will definitely want to be on the email chain so hook me up!
Aisha Bawany Paradigm
- If you have any questions: message me on Facebook, Instagram, or email me at email@example.com
I debated in high school in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national circuit, and 2 years in PF. I did policy debate for two years at UT Dallas.
I'm fine with speed just please be clear.
I believe you need some sort of framework/way for me to evaluate the round. Don't assume that because I did policy that I default to a consequentialist/magnitude impacts. If you want me to evaluate that, you need to have a value/criterion that says that I should evaluate arguments on the scale of consequentialism. I ran different philosophical frameworks when I did LD and enjoy listening to unique ones and the way you justify your position through it. You may be able to convince me that disclosure is good in LD.
I'm going to be honest when I say I'm predisposed to preferring topical aff positions in policy because I have mostly debated with topical policy cases. That is not to say that I won't vote on them, just that I am not the best judge to evaluate K v. K debates, and K Affs v. Framework debates. However, I do have experience running/understanding those arguments because my partner and I ran a nontopical aff for half a semester, so don't stop running those arguments, just make it easier for me to understand the method by which I should evaluate the round. For off cases, I think you need to win a link (by link, I mean a link, not a risk of a link, I mean a LINK) in order for me to vote on any K/DA. Disclosure is good.
- Debate is a game
- The point of debate is to be persuasive, so I think that as long as you persuade me on something, and have some good cards (even if they're untrue) then I'll vote for you. I love people that can answer arguments using a few logical responses. Quality over quantity.
- I will vote on everything in round if it's explained well and you win the argument. Caveat to that is that I don't care about out of round impacts or voting for you because you're discriminated against (sorry not going to give you a W for that guys)
- Debate warrants, not tags. Name the argument not the author. I don't know your case as well as you do to remember your authors name
- I don't read evidence unless it's contested/important. What does that mean? It means that I'm not going to read through your entire case and defend you because that's not my job. It means that YOU need to understand that I can keep up and flow, but you need to extend arguments and not expect me to offer concessions to you. This trend of "oh they have my case in front of them so they don't need me to do anything" doesn't count.Your speech matters. That's why you stand up and talk for a long ass time
- Also LOL @ you if you try to post round me, because idgaf, and my decision isn't fucking changing :)
- To those who like to spread really fast through analytical theory arguments that haven't been written up: good job, I'll probably miss a lot of those arguments, so it's on you for me missing those.
>>>> it basically goes like this:
- Debater spreads analytics so fast that judge can't keep up while flowing
- Judge votes for other debater because they missed something probably important because the debater didn't slow down
Erick Berdugo Paradigm
My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but that is the only first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed so that they are consistent.
If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.
There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.
Things I have voted for AND against
K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation.
counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.
Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters that’s what I will likely default to.
Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I end towards post fiat worlds in close debates.
RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 9-7-19
Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.
I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.
Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.
Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.
Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think that High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The debate format is not that of exclusive conversations academics would have. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.
So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.
i do not have a have a problem for a spread. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think promoting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise.
I do not put myself as part of the email chain as I think by reading along it lowers the standard of the verbal communicative aspect of the debate.
I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.
You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.
When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document.
Darren Boarnet Paradigm
I was a debater in High School and did policy but have been out of the game for a long time I judge a few times a year but mostly policy.
Speed - Don't do it too fast but as long as I can understand you then it doesn't matter to me
Tech > Truth - If an argument is flowed without an answer I presume it to be true
Don't read offensive arguments ie - racism good etc... I will vote you down for that
Arguments must have a claim, warrant and an impact without a warrant or an impact the argument is there but it has no value as far as weighing mechanisms within the debate
Engage with the aff the affirmative gives an argument and the negatives job is to dispute that follow your burden
Don't use a ton of debate terminology it is just a bunch of filler words explain your argument
Don't read defend the topic you have to be topical
Okay if you explain it well and the links have to be strong to the affirmative
Don't read Kant or other weird LD things they destroy debate
Don't read small theory arguments that aren't true read only if you can explain how it is cheating
Speak slow when going for a shell
Impact out T
Go for them
I love a good CP debate
My favorite type of debate have it and don't just drop it it's a huge part of debates
Jake Cosio Paradigm
School Affiliation: Coach at Lovejoy High School
Debate Experience: Coaching and judging LD and CX since 2013, PF since 2016
On CX and LD:
Speed - I don’t mind speed. Please clearly signal that you are transitioning from cards to tags. Slow down for your tags (especially if they are super long) and cites. If you could number or in some way signal me on analytics to help me get my flow to match yours it would be much appreciated. In summation, the more explicit you are with organization the better I will be able to flow. Additionally, I will say “clear” if your words are slurred or say “slow down” if you are simply outpacing my ability to flow accurately.
Theory - I like theory when it is necessary, but dislike the use of blippy theory. If you have any theory (or any other format of arg) that says using specific words is bad, just tell everyone before the round what is preferable. If they bait it after that then I’m all ears, but will have a really high threshold on this otherwise (as in you will have to prove to me why it wasn’t important enough to disclose before the round but is important enough for me to vote on). On other issues, I’m really looking for good internal links to your voting issues. Absent debate, I tend to prefer single actor CP’s to multi-actor and dispositionality to condo.
Topicality - I default to competing interpretations. In round abuse is preferable, but I will listen to potential abuse if well developed and defined. Make sure to clearly link and establish your impact(s) to your standards. I am generally not inclined to vote on T as an RVI.
Kritiks - Being completely honest, I am not the best at evaluating K debate. I prefer strategies going for a mix of DA/CP/T/Case and am much more comfortable evaluating these. I would say you're running the K at your own risk. If you are a K debater, that’s fine, but please take the time to explain your K to me without assuming that I have read your authors and/or have intimate knowledge of their content. To be clear, speak in plain English when explaining everything (even your tags).
Speaks - I generally reward organization, clarity, and efficiency. In essence, the easier you make it for me to flow (without boring me to death) the better your speaks will be. On the other hand, I penalize rudeness and unprofessionalism. I expect a fairly high level of decorum (stand while speaking, don’t use offensive/vulgar language, etc.).
On CX specifically:
To categorize myself neatly in some distinct category isn’t fair for anyone, but the closest approximation that I can make is to place me on the policy maker side of tab with a few caveats (as outlined above).
In cross-examination I have a preference for the speakers traditionally assigned to a certain cross-x to be the people that are active during this time. If your partner is answering a significant portion of the questions asked of you, you will be penalized in speaker points. One or two questions isn’t a big deal to me, but 50+ percent of them would see a small penalty.
On LD specifically:
Keep in mind that I am not necessarily expecting (or even wanting) you to run policy args. A good framework with well established advantages of affirming/negating is a completely acceptable strategy to me.
Speed - a fast conversational seems best suited to PF for me. I will probably penalize speaks for anything excessively fast.
Format of Summary Speeches - I would prefer a line by line, but if grouping is necessary for efficiency I am ok with it.
Role of the Final Focus - Weighing and voters
Topicality - Run it if it is necessary, but I am most likely just going to default to reasonability and gut check it before anything else on the flow.
Plans - I think all offense should be linked directly to the resolution, but you can characterize how the resolution would be implemented. In the instance of Con speaking first, I will not allow the Pro to no link all of the Con offense simply because they present a plan.
Kritiks - I'm really bad at them. Probably not a good idea (see above).
Flowing/note-taking - I will judge based on my flow.
Argument vs style - my ballot will be based on the arguments. Style will not weigh in much to my decision (as long as style does not interfere with my ability to understand you).
A few questions you may want answers to:
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, it should be extended.
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? It is not required, but is not discouraged either.
Do I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No
Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you can be reasonably specific.
Erich DeSchepper Paradigm
I am TABULA RASA !!! BLANK SLATE...FAIR.
I am fine with anything but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argumenT.
K - If you run a K I want to know the SPECIFIC ROLE
T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality. The topicality has to be strong obvi.
REALLY VAGUE LINKS ARE NOT GOOD
CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.
LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE IMPORTANT
Speed - I am fine with speed, however I much prefer quality arguments that resound your point. In life, you're going to be a more effective advocate when you can in depth explain and strike the opposition rather than just saying nonsense you dont understand. I will let you know in round if speed is an issue. Dont let me throw you of
CLASH CLASH CLASH!
Raj Dharani Paradigm
Madi Gackenbach Paradigm
Head coach at Plano East Senior High.
In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional. Kritiks are not a favorite, I feel like they are too generic and lazy debating. On case attacks are important! Theory, CPs, PICs, RoB, DAs, are all good.
In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.
I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.
I do not tolerate rudeness. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness results in lowest speaks possible.
Include me in on email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I look forward to hearing you speak!
Nate Galang Paradigm
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Conflicts: Klein HS, Seven Lakes HS, McMillen NG, Jack C. Hays HB, Village AI
K (high theory): 1
LARP: 1 or 2
K (identity politics): 3
5 minutes before the round
I will evaluate any argument that:
a. Has a warrant
b. Does not render debate unsafe
It would be helpful if you do these things:
1. Pop tags, author names, and pause at the end of cards or when switching between sheets. It makes speeches so much easier to follow.
2. Slow down on interps, standard/role of the ballot texts, and advocacy texts. I don't think anyone will but if you do I'll appreciate it a lot and might bump speaks a tiny bit.
3. Give me a ballot story at the end of the round.
I debated for Klein from 2014 to 2018, starting with PF in freshman year and switching to LD halfway through sophomore year. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and octofinaled at TFA.
I went for a few different styles of arguments, primarily high-theory kritiks, social contract theory, and soft-left policy affirmatives.
Explain and over-explain your arguments. If you give me contextual, comparative analysis and weighing, it'll make it easier for me to understand your arguments (and it will probably help your speaks).
If something doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't evaluate it. I don't look at speech docs during the round. This doesn't mean every word has to be crystal-clear or that you can't make fast arguments, it just means that if you are going to make blippy arguments, delineate between them well enough that I can catch a warrant in the few seconds you spend making each argument.
Tech > truth unless you say something that's outright false.
LARP/Policy arguments Plan + Advantage(s)
This was my a-strat most of senior year. I mostly read soft-left affs, but if you want to go for three extinction scenarios then do your thing.
Develop a ballot story for the plan. Explain how the plan resolves the specific harms raised in the advantage(s) and collapse to/expand upon specific warrants in later speeches.
Good solvency wins ballots. If you have good empirical solvency with well-explained reasons why your evidence is contextual to the topic and solves the advantage(s), you'll have a good time.
I'm good with this. Please don't go for everything in the 2NR. Give a good explanation of the overall DA story and how it turns/outweighs/interacts with the case. Similarly, give a good 2NR explanation of how the CP solves the case especially if the advocacy is some obscure policy.
Since my background is in LD, I will evaluate CP theory to a far greater degree than a lot of people with policy backgrounds. I'll evaluate things like one condo CP bad, one dispo CP bad, etc.
This is what I did most often in high school. I read mostly high-theory kritiks and also some stock kritiks like cap. The authors I'm most familiar with are Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Weheliye, and Bataille (a little bit). I'm not as fond of identity politics and it was never what I read during high school, but I think there can be excellent rounds on identity politics.
I like any and all K debate done well. By extension, bad K debate will make me really sad. Don't read a K just because it's what I like. I would much rather see you read something you like and read it well than read the K poorly.
If the 2NR has a really long overview with a ton of embedded clash, don't be surprised if you're not happy with how I resolve the debate. Do the work on the line-by-line and implicate arguments on specific sheets to resolve clash instead of reading a 4-minute overview that your coach wrote for you.
Explain what your author says. Don't rely on my prior knowledge of your author to substitute for your explanation. Don't expect me to examine speech docs to try and piece together what your argument was saying after the round. I need to understand your version of the argument.
I did a decent amount of this my senior year. Some phil debate, especially all-analytic frameworks, is really hard to flow. Try to delineate between arguments clearly and give me time to catch up when you're blazing through analytics.
Similar to what I wrote on K debate, don't assume I know what your author says and give your own explanation of the argument.
Theory is fine. I don't care whether you use theory to check abuse or if you just use it as a strategic tool.
Give a clear abuse story. Unified analysis in terms of how you approach answering the counter-interp and developing offense on the interp will make evaluating the round way easier.
I don't think I should ever have to have "defaults" on theory because you should be implicating everything in the shell. But I'll default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater.
Delineate between arguments to make them easier to follow. Theory debates are really fast so please try to minimize how blippy you are.
If you're extemping theory, you should pre-write your interp.
Weigh early with theory, especially since you often have fewer speeches on theory (i.e. if it gets introduced in the 1AR). Make them count and make sure that I know how different standards interact as quickly as possible.
I think that disclosure is probably good in general. If you're from a big school or you have bids, you basically have no excuse for not disclosing.
I'm sympathetic to small schools not disclosing. I was the only LDer from my school and I disclosed, but I get why not everyone would want to.
Be honest about your arguments. I don't like the sketchy kind of tricks debate that happens where people are super evasive in CX. If you want to go for presumption/permissibility triggers that's fine, but don't intentionally make arguments unclear in order to gain an advantage. If you do, you will probably be unhappy with how I render my decision.
If you make me laugh I'll probably bump your speaks. Don't be mean pls
Evan Gilbert Paradigm
Please add me to your email chain,
Currently debate at UTD, have always done policy debate.
I am more of a critical debater but I've done straight up policy for several years so im comfortable with any style of argument.
Given that i don't feel any particular way about any type of argument. I think the only way you can cheat is by speaking more than your alotted time, clipping cards, getting outside help during the debate, not followimg tournament rules, etc. I could potentially vote on any theory argument or just argument im general provided that you have proven that it is a good thing/true.
Being disrespectful is a good way to lose yourself some speaker points, you can be firm and assertive without being disrespectful, its prolly not a good idea to respond to disrespect with disrespect.
In most cases, I will be flowing you, not your speech docs. I prefer to look at them after your speech rather than during it. You won't go so fast that I won't be able to keep up but keep in mind that the faster you go the more generic my flows will be. This'll prolly hurt you more in rebuttals than it will in constructives. Again, this isn't me saying go slow.
Always explain the premises of your argument, I will never fill in gaps for you wether i am familiar with your lit or not, and if there are gaps in explanation then its prolly am argument that I can't evaluate.
I don't make facial expressions during debates, it may look like im mad but most likely im not, im listening, dont worry.
Feel free to ask me any specific questions.
Paul Gravley Paradigm
I coach Northland Christian.
Please justify a role-of-the-ballot argument (standard, criteria, ROB, ROJ, all fine, just justify it)
Evidence Ethics (and decorum) matter. If there is an evidence-ethics/cheating claim, I will stop the debate immediately. If I believe there is a violation, I will award the accusing debater with a win. I will then immediately contact tab and let them know what I have done. All challenges are then up to the tournament process.
I prefer and believe I am best at evaluating util/policy-style debates. Plans, CP's, Disads, all good.
I like the K debate. I am not well-read in Deleuze or Butler. I am fairly well read in Marx, Wilderson, Curry, and bell hooks. I am very well read in Cone, Augustine, Aquinas, and Wesley. These are not exhaustive lists.
I see theory/Topicality as a matter of competing interps. I am more inclined to buy reasonability arguments on Theory than T.
The K vs Theory debate is interesting. Be clear on in-round implications when impacting out this debate.
I'm probably not your best judge if your strategy is tricks.
Performance arguments are fine. See ROB caveat above.
Speed is fine. Clarity is better. Please make sure I know where a tag starts and a card ends.
I want to be on the email-chain (if the tournament is cool with it). paul DOT gravley AT gmail DOT com
Christi Grudier Paradigm
Callie Ham Paradigm
***Include me in your email chain.*** firstname.lastname@example.org
LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions (i.e. Sept/Oct 2018), value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or policy arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.
Policy Short Story
As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):
Policy Long Story
Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.
K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.
T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.
CP/DA: Sure? Run them? Why not?
Theory/Framework: Sure. Whatevs. Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.
The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.
Have fun! Be nice! (or at least reasonable)
Christy Harms Paradigm
I appreciate clear clash. Keep a civil demeanor at all times. Points/contentions should be enumerated and each should have a tag line so I can follow along easier. Do NOT talk too fast (no spreading). I must be able to understand what you are saying if I am to judge you accurately. Both competitors should stand during CX. Don't assume I know what your "card" says and just use the card tagline. Please restate the pertinent information from the card as needed to support your point. Value and Criterion are key. Be sure to keep to the resolution as it is stated.
Be sure to stick to the resolution as stated. Keep a civil demeanor at all times. A good clear logical flow is appreciated. Points/contentions should be enumerated and each should have a tag line. All competitors can sit during Grand Crossfire. Individuals should stand during their individual crossfire. No spreading. I must be able to understand you. Do not verbally prompt your partner during their CX, however you may pass notes. Presenting a good framework and logical, supporting points that stick to that are key.
I do not disclose or give feedback at the end of a round.
Candace Hightower Paradigm
Marcus High School
Texas A&M Commerce
Frequency of Judging:
I have not judged much this year
Speaker Point Scale:
27-30 (lower for egregious incidents)
I want to hear the resolution debated; that's the entire purpose of the round. I prefer traditional value/criterion LD cases. The quality of arguments is more important than the quantity. Speed is ok if I am on the e-mail chain and all arguments are included in the chain; otherwise, no spreading
Things not to run when I am the judge:
Pre-standards. K's. Theory just for the sake of running theory when an actual violation has not occurred in the round. As for impact calculus- do not run extinction arguments; they're unrealistic and I will vote probability over magnitude when given the option. I won't automatically discount plans and CP's but if there is something else in the round that is a viable option for me to vote on, I will. Topicality arguments need to consist of an actual topicality violation. I will vote it down if you run this nonsense topicality argument that the aff needs to narrow down the focus of the resolution instead of debating the exact wording.
Snehal Jasani Paradigm
I am a parent judge.
1.Don't speak fast/spreading I will vote you down if you spread
2.Tell me what arguments to vote on I won't extend anything if you don't EXTEND it
3. Explain and Flesh out every card CRYSTALIZING is very important
4.Signpost and say "and" between the cards so I know what the tag is and it is easier for me to judge the round
1.Be Topical-I won't vote of non-topical aff and neg cases. I like to see a Clear link
2. NO THEORY-if you see abuse in the round just point it out no need of a theory shell
3.I will not vote on Skep
4.Don't use debate jargon
Austin Johnson Paradigm
Trinity Valley School
Head Coach/Program Director
Debate coach for four years. Took kids to TOC and NSDA Nats.
Role of the Judge
I’m willing to evaluate any and all roles-of-the-judge you put forward. It’s the judge’s job to weigh the round under the criteria you give. That is, the judge is a referee who makes decisions about a game whose rules are determined by its players over the course of each round.
If you're going to spread, I want to be on it. I'll give my e-mail at the time of the round.
I do not flow CX.
Track your own prep. I’m okay with flex prep. Flashing is not prep.
Speak as quickly as you are comfortable. However, if you’re going to spread, please be sure to include me on the e-mail chain.
I’ll weigh theory if I must. But I would prefer to vote on literally anything else. If something genuinely abusive (not even in the direction of the topic, undisclosed, etc.) happens in the round, then you should call it out. Otherwise, don’t waste time. If the only reason you’re winning a debate is because you’re manipulating the rules of debate, you’re not winning a debate.
Additionally, don't run Theory just to suck up time. The only thing worse than winning a round because you're just manipulating the rules is winning a round because you're wasting time talking about manipulating the rules and then not manipulating the rules, because that means I had to listen to your crappy theory non-argument which you then did nothing with!
I’m cool with plans. Just remember that reading a plan in LD means taking on a heavier burden of proof than defending the resolution as-written.
If I’m letting Aff run plans, I should probably let Neg run DAs and CPs. So I do.
Performance is cool. I buy in-round solvency and pre-fiat alts.
The K is the reason I’m a debate coach. I’m a Ph.D. in English lit who got his degree after 2000, which means I had to be conversant in a loooooot of critical literature. I like materialist or semiotic approaches; psychoanalysis Ks are very slippery and I don’t generally enjoy them.
K Affs are fine, but you need to be prepared for a protracted debate about framing that you can actually win.
Todd Kessler Paradigm
School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas
Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.
Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.
Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.
Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.
Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.
Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it.
Tricks: Please don't.
Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.
Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: email@example.com
Arsh Ladhani Paradigm
Debated for 4 years for Colleyville heritage. 2 years Cx, 2 years Ld.
I used to more of a K debater but weaker on phil debate, but I will listen to it, just make sure to explain it thoroughly
Please do not shake my hand after the round.
Email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dhruva Mambapoor Paradigm
Hi I'm Dhruva Mambapoor!
I debated for four years in LD at Westwood HS (2018). I qualified for the TOC my senior year. I am a second-year out.
team email (preferred): email@example.com
non-team email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Important Things Others Have Said About my Judging:
1. I'm bad at flowing --- I tend to miss a lot of arguments, I don't like it, but I'm not afraid to admit it because you deserve to know.
To resolve this go somewhat slower than you would with other judges. You don't have to go super slow or repeat things often, just be clearer and go slower than your regular style.
On my end, I will flow on my laptop, because I can type much much faster than I can hand-write, and it's neater.
Will I say slow or clear? I will try, but if your unclear or too fast, most of my attention will be on figuring out what you're saying, so I will probably forget. If its incomprehensible to me, then I will say slow or clear twice and then just focus on listening.
2. I tend to overthink --- I get lost in the minutiae during and after the debate.
That means probably more judge intervention than most judges. Usually its because I'm trying to find a missing piece of the puzzle in your arguments, because I'm afraid I missed something.
That also means I will take a long time to decide.
That also means I confuse myself of a lot. The messier the debate the more this gets worse.
To resolve this make the debate less messy, focus on a few arguments (i will miss something if you just dump a bunch of arguments on the flow), fill in the gaps you may assume I just know, and send a doc with all pre-written arguments in all speeches. On my end I will do my best to sift through the debate, identify what could or could not be judge intervention, and reduce my decision time to avoid over-complicating the debate.
3. Long RFDs --- This is less from giving my decision and more from me giving feedback. I also am not an efficient speaker, which makes things much worse.
To resolve this feel free to interrupt me (yes I know its rude, but keeping the tournament on time matters), point out that I'm being inefficient or going on a tangent, and ask questions to selectively choose the feedback most important to you.
On my end I will keep decision time and feedback to a max of 15 min. Yes that means the messier the debate, the more decision time, and the less feedback time even though messier debates are when you need it the most. To resolve this, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at email@example.com. If you're a coach or judge watching and you wanted to give feedback, so I can be a better judge, also feel free to email me.
Overview to How I Evaluate Debates:
I evaluate arguments based on credence. This may be a bad explanation of this or not even close to the actual judging style based on argument's credence values. Basically, I don't start of every argument at 100%. Instead each argument has a certain validity to it, from 0 to infinity and beyond.
How compelling or credible an argument is, I base on two factors:
1. If your justifications are true, how well does the conclusion logically follow.
2. How well does it fit my background knowledge on the subject.
The second usually happens unconsciously, but I've decided to mention it, so you know that I have biases. If I recognize the bias, I will account for it, but recognizing my own bias is a difficult task. You can override the second factor by simply filling in the gaps where I would put my background knowledge. If you say your shirt is green because you rolled around in the grass, that would make sense because I think grass is green and stains clothes. If I didn't, you simply have to say your shirt is green because you rolled around in a green grass field which stains clothes.
If there are no arguments in the debate that are compelling or have decent enough warrants, then I will lower my standards until someone has sufficient offense for me to vote. The more I lower my standards the riskier the debate becomes.
So then what's compelling and fits my background info? see below
The Specifics of the Common Positions:
A debate whose key characteristic is often blitzing through analytics is very risky in front of me because I tend to miss a lot especially when I can't verify with another source of information like a doc or its a common shell I've heard before. You can read theory, just make sure you can really implement the solutions given at the top of this paradigm. That also doesn't mean you can be as abusive as you want. I will give more leeway to common T/Theory (Pics bad, 2+ condo bad, infinite NIBs bad, etc.). That given, reading theory strategically instead of reading it to check abuse (or often both), is ok, but because T/Theory is naturally harder for me to flow and understand, it probably isn't strategic anyways.
Extra note for topicality:
I read basically only plan affs in HS, so I will understand them and the subsequent T/Theory debates more. If you have an untopical K aff, great! I also understand that subsequent T/theory debate more than other T debates as well. As the aff, I just need a stronger defense of why you are untopical and a more easy to understand explanation of the theories behind the K aff. And No, I'm not going to reject the aff just because its untopical. Against K affs, I'm also more interested in an neg strategy that engages with case. That just means I will pay more attention (unconsciously) to neg strategies without T in it or at the least has substantive case answers.
Don't assume I know the lit behind, because I probably don't. In HS I read: Deleuze, Culp (Dark Deleuze), Cap. I have some knowledge on: Deleuze, Culp, Wilderson, Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrillard, Bataille, Freud and Lacan, Marx, Zizek. I have a little knowledge on: Derrida, Fanon, Queer Pess, Buddhism.
I have high standards for the alt. It should, ideally, resolve the impact, or propose and thoroughly explain some shift in paradigm/lens that is competitive with the aff and is more net beneficial than continuing with the aff paradigm.
Don't assume I know the lit behind it. In HS I read: Util, Generic Structural Violence, and Koorsgard (Kant-ish). I have some knoweldge on: Util, Koorsgaard, Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Levinas. I have a little knowledge on: Scanlon, Jaeggi, Hegel, Grievability.
I love util and SV frameworks. As a good rule of thumb, I will like frameworks that are grounded in materiality more. However, I can like a good phil debate if each argument is developed and fleshed out. I do not like phil debates with a lot of dumps and blippy analytics.
If you run a CP, the burden of proof shifts to you. If the aff and the CP are very similar then I need a strong net benefit to vote neg. The CP alone needs to be better than the perm to win the CP.
Easiest debates for me to understand. I love a good DA debate. If its big-stick (nuclear war, etc.), which it probably is, then I have high standards for evidence. It should at least indicate extinction (or whatever the scope) is possible, or it's paired with a compelling analytic that indicates extinction is possible or you explain why the evidence would imply this well in cross-ex.
I'm not as informed as I would like to be. Given that, I won't be able to verify many analytics so most if not all arguments should have evidence. I will give more leeway to responses because its hard to have applicable evidence to strange politics scenarios or weirdly structured ones.
Disclosing open source is preferred. Disclosing full text is functionally mandatory. If you read a disclosure shell, you must include a screenshot with a timestamp.
You can change any of the above with warranted arguments. No I don't mean just good arguments, I mean make arguments with claims like "Big-stick impacts don't need to indicate extinction", "Frameworks grounded in materiality are oppressive", etc. Be very explicit and clear with the paradigm you want me to adopt, and then warrant it well.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me, or ask before the round.
Eric Melin Paradigm
Email chains are good. Include me firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate Coach @ Coppell 9th Grade Center and Coppell High School (2018- )
Mean Green Comet Debate Institute -Director of LD (2019 - )
Previously coached teams: Grapevine and Colleyville (2017-2018), Law Magnet (2015-2017), Hockaday (2009-2014), Southlake Carroll (2006-2009), Colleyville and Grapevine (2005-2006).
I debated for Grapevine High School, graduating in 1997. I judged debate for a few years after that before taking some time off for grad school. In have been a classroom teacher and debate coach since 2007. I was an LDer in high school but competed in policy at some tournaments junior and senior year. I also debated for UT Austin for one year. While most of my time coaching has been spent focusing on LD, I began coaching policy debate regularly in 2015 when I worked at Law Magnet. I coached the policy kids at Grapevine last year and now (2018-2019)coach policy at Coppell and Coppell 9.
I think debate operates in a unique place in the high school experience, where it serves as a crucible for the development of advocacy skills and critical engagement that is not replicated anywhere else. I love this activity and want each successive generation to be able to enjoy it. As such, be good to one another! Take care of our space and leave it better than the way you found it. Come back and give back if debate has given you a space to develop yourself.
1. Please forward a well-developed ballot story.
2. Tell me what you want me to vote on.
3. Compare evidence - this doesn’t happen enough and it’s usually what close debates depend on to resolve.
4. K aff’s - I default to believing that K aff's should still be affirmative arguments. I think switch-side debate is good and develops a portable skill that other activities do not. K aff's should forward counter-interpretations as needed. I am willing vote on framework. That being said I am unimpressed with teams that run framework but never go for T in other debates.
5. Counterplans - when they are case specific they are great less specific is obviously less good. I am not thrilled by the 50 states cp or consult cp’s generally. PiCs are fine. The aff should have to defend their plan.
6. I prefer line-by-line debate more than long overviews. Too many rebuttals I’ve seen recently spend a ton of time explaining arguments in over views that should just be done on the flow. Numbering arguments and following the order of your opponents is preferable or at least be explicit when re-grouping the flow.
7. I cannot flow a string of unending analytics with no time to type even if its in perfect outline form in your speech doc. This means slow down on theory arguments, 2ac blocks of text that you have read a lot of times but I am hearing for the first time, etc. I will not vote on what I don't catch.
8. I will be following along with the evidence read in the debate on my computer. I will not be on Facebook or otherwise doing things that would take my attention away from the debate. I wish more judges would commit to paying attention to every debate.
LD specific (also see notes above)
Theory is over-used in LD. You will always have links of omission to generate violations. I have a high threshold for frivolous theory.
RVI's can be justified but not on topicality. That said ditching substance and going for 4 minutes of RVI in the 1ar is not the A-strat in most rounds in front of me.
You must email/flash/give a copy your cases (and evidence in later speeches) to your opponents prior to the beginning of your speech.
You may not read paraphrased evidence and expect me to evaluate it.
I will listen to disclosure arguments and theory arguments about bad evidentiary practices.
Jenn Melin Paradigm
Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)
Email for email chains:
If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.
-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.
I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.
In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.
That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.
Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.
l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.
I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.
One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.
I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.
I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.
Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.
Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.
I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.
Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.
Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.
You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.
Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.
Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.
Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.
Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.
Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.
Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.
Yvette Molina Paradigm
Anaiya Moran Paradigm
Hello all debaters!
My name is Anaiya Moran, I am currently a second year college student in the Dallas area. I attended Newman Smith High School, located in the Carrollton-Farmer's Branch district. My speech/debate experience in high school includes 3 years of varsity Lincoln Douglas debate, as well as a few novice congressional debate rounds and public forum. As for judging, I have experience with all debates along with theatrical events also. My paradigms include:
- I am okay with speed, as long as you are clear and I can understand every word. Please slow down and annunciate tag lines clearly. What I cannot understand, I will not flow.
- I am not a fan of theory debates or K's, so if what you're running is not topical, does not include a value/criterion, or simply does not make sense to me without clear explanations, I will not vote for you.
-I am fine with flex prep, as long as all competitors are. Email chains are also okay, as long as I am included on them.
- I suggest that debaters keep their own time, however if you need me to, just ask.
- Lastly, BUT most importantly, debate is suppose to be FUN. Please be kind, courteous, respectful, make eye contact, speak clearly, and enjoy every moment!
Alyson Neeley Paradigm
I have 10 years experience in all areas of debate. I can handle speed however if I cannot understand you I will not flow it. If I do not flow it then it did not happen. If you want to run a K, T or or any other progressive argument, I'm game as long as you can prove it. It its difficult for me to believe it you won't win.
If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Himanshu Pandya Paradigm
DeMarcus Powell Paradigm
Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm. email@example.com
Only send speech docs to for Dallas tournaments firstname.lastname@example.org.For national circuit tournament please send speech docs to email@example.com
ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.
About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years .Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.
Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.
Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.
Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.
Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!
Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.
- Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.
Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.
General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.
Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.
Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.
Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.
Claudia Ribera Paradigm
Katy Taylor 2017
Hello, I’m a junior at Texas and coach CX and LD. I was coached by Elijah Smith (Emporia SW) in high school and he taught me everything I know about debate. This means I've had my fair share of reading and/or coaching teams reading very policy arguments to very critical arguments. I debated nationally in high school and have coached kids in both events to deep elims of tournaments, round robins, and accumulate bids to the TOC.
2019-2020 Conflicts: Houston EP (CX), Alief Kerr EG (CX), Katy Taylor AP (LD), and Guyer CM (LD).
Previous Conflicts: Katy Taylor, Cy-Fair TW, and Woodlands MR
Overall, I think it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and having a clear impact framing because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is place for you to do you. Just like everyone, I have my own predispositions (see further explanation below). However, I make my decisions on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. I am unlikely to decide debates based on my personal feelings about content/style of argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. Have fun and best of luck!
PLEASE put me on the email chain -- if you ask what my email is, I'll assume you didn't read this and be sort of disappointed. firstname.lastname@example.org
Theory: I will default to “competing interps” and “No RVIs” unless told otherwise. I will not make any presumptions on the voter level of the debate. This includes the voter (fairness/education/etc.) and the implication (drop debater/argument). Failure to present arguments in favor of a voter and its implication is to present an unwarranted argument. I will not evaluate the argument. This also means you should be extending your voter and its implication properly and in every speech. Just slow down on interps on shells. Weigh standards!
Frivolous theory/tricks: I don't typically judge these debates and I really don't like this style in LD debate. A prioris, skep triggers, and other arguments similar to these should be left back in 2012.
- Voting Neg on Presumption
- No RVI
Kritiks: I went for the K almost every 2NR the second half of my senior year. I am the most familiar with structural criticisms like Anti-blackness, Settler Colonialism, and Quare/Queerness Kritiks. I am not well versed in post-modernism so please do not blaze through the intricate details of your arguments. Give examples on the link level (super important) and have impact framing because it is incredibly important for you to do that in order to get my ballot. Please include some type of framing so I know what you are talking about i.e. ROB/ROJ.
Performance Debate: I'm always down to listen/watch. You must have a methodology and defend an advocacy. Explain how your performance (aff or neg) does something whether that be within debate or this round etc.
Topicality: Yes. Just weigh in the debate and generate offense. I don't vote for RVI's on T because that doesn't make sense.
Framework: I read a lot of policy and critical positions in high school so I am most comfortable with util and rob/roj frameworks. If you choose to read a dense phil framework, just give me a decent overview of the FW and how offense operates under it i.e. what do I evaluate, how it affirms or negates, how it/if it precludes your opponents argument and offense. I don't typically see a lot of these types of debates when I judge, so pref accordingly if you only like reading phil positions.
Policy args (LARP): Go for it. I usually read a policy aff if I didn't read a K aff. Counterplans are cool and you must have net benefits on it. Be ready to have the textual/functional competition debate. I don't care for condo bad/good debate unless multiple offs that are conditional. PICs are cool. Disads are always a good strat as well and even better if it is impacted as a net benefit to the cp. Make sure to generate offense and you must have impact calculus.
General: Clarity is important and debaters forget to slow down on long blocks of analytics (especially for T/theory) and pls try to follow the line by line as best you can.
Case: Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part to every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.
Policy Affs: if you have a traditional policy aff just slow down on the plan text pls and have some sort of impact calc in the 2AR. I think these are fine.
CP/DA: Go for it. Don't forget to ask the status and PICs are fine. Test the competition of the cp(s) and make impact turns/defense. Explain why the perm(s) won't solve.
K Affs: I'm all for it. There are couple things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your fw of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear is buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote neg on presumption.
Theory: Go for it I guess. I'm more persuaded more by competing interps than reasonability.
Kritiks: Yes. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism. You should have specific links to affirmatives because without it you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact. The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explain the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation for if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually wining an impact framing claim.
Framework: Sure. I like fw debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more to competing interps than reasonability and believe that the neg should make sure to fully flesh out the link and internal link to your impact and actually make offensive arguments against fairness/education voters. Make strategic TVAs. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff team are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. Aff teams this means: 1) You need a counter interp or counter model of debate and what debate looks like under this model, and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. 2) The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. 3) Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.
Miscellaneous for both CX/LD:
- I don’t count flashing as prep time unless you're taking too long.
- Always be ready even if I am not present in the round yet.
- Tech > truth. the more you're proficient in the debate, the better your speaks will be.
- Respect your opponent's pronouns.
- Everything must be together in one speech doc before you stop prep to flash.
- Time yourselves.
- Flex prep is cool if your opponent is cool with it.
- Higher speaks will be rewarded with strategic cross-ex.
Here is a list of some people (in addition to Elijah) who are some of my favorite judges and/or have influenced the way I view debate:
Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley
Don't be rude and don't make arguments that are bigoted, racist, homophobic, etc. because I will dock your speaks.
email me email@example.com if you have any questions or fb message me
Cindy Schwartz Paradigm
Mario Shields Paradigm
Word of advice.... Always see if your judge has a posted paradigm online. Save yourself time and frustration and read for comprehension. Get clarification as needed and then don't just disregard what you find out about that judge.
YOUR MAIN CONCERN SHOULD NEVER BE SPEED. FOCUS ON CLARITY AND EFFICIENCY AND THE JUDGE WILL BE IN YOUR CORNER BY DEFAULT.
My mindset going into the round is basic the Aff will prove that the plan or case is a viable/moral/good idea that I should approve of with them gaining the ballot. The Neg will prove that the aff doesn't uphold or violates the resolution and that negating is the only truth of the resolution after all.
I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA you get the jist I have a zero tolerance policy for and I promise I will have no problem setting you straight dont test it.
I strive to be Tabula R. but will always weigh STOCK ISSUES 1st. Don't overcomplicate the story bc presumption is also in play. Keep my flow clean and I am your friend ... if you don't then I make no promises. Remember your primary goal is to communicate a viable policy option so persuade me that you know what you are selling. Signposting is very important ... watch my flipping of pages etc since I still flow on paper. There should be structure not just 1 long stream of thought moving down the flow. Im big picture and open minded to strategy and games playing.
Neg's please don't just waste time throwing up 15 arguments when 3-4 will be more strategic... and please kick out properly. On K Aff's don't overlook simple stock issues burdens being dropped. I see a lot of teams not go for the obvious because they think that they are going to set off a trigger warning. ALWAYS get some case offense and defense unless you're going to truly commit to T.
Also plan out the positions for strategy even if generic.... sometimes things that still work get dropped too soon ... make the Aff work for it. Also cover as many stock issues as possible or at least go on case and really look for weaknesses. Always give us a reason to doubt the 1AC. Even if its a small chance it could be the tie breaker that gains you the ballot by pushing you into no other reason but to negate.
Topicality - rare that I vote on so be prepared to prove the abuse if its just a way to time skew then my advice is to spend another minute on case you have a better tradeoff that works for me.
Kritiks - the link in round is most important... also I need to believe that you know what you are trying to accomplish with the Kritik fyi not many high schoolers are truly prepared here so please do your due diligence... keep it simple.
Counterplans - net benefit and competition... give me a reason that the Plan is not the CP
Perms - slow down to speed up ... make sure that you dont leave any confusion
Framework - How do I evaluate the round ... Tell me what matters most.
In CX please stand and face the judge only never your opponent and dont be "lazy" stand tall and proud. ALWAYS convey confidence.
I prefer a more traditional approach to LD over progressive but I will adapt if you communicate to me what you want to happen.
I will always give you a fair evaluation no matter what you present as long as you are confident and OWN your personal compelling reasons to prefer how you interpret the resolution. Give me conceptual points over trying to fit in 5-7 more cards.
Again I prefer big picture logical storytelling not just more "evidence". That being said most importantly support your premise of the resolution and may the ballot be ever in your favor.
Aff - Take advantage of 1st and last speech. Never forget the importance of definitions and setting up a strong weighing mechanism in the AC. I have a super high threshold on theory so save yourself a lot of time in the 1AR giving me clear reasons that the Neg should have just read a counterdefinition rather than make you spend 2 minutes of your speech to address it properly. That to me is way more reasonable and actually kicks the abuse claims back on the Neg.
You set the tone dont waste it Tell us what the resolution wants us to settle and allow for your framework to work towards that goal. Give solid structure in your case and build great analytics from a wide variety of cards over just 1 author... the power of multiple sources backing up your advocacy is an advantage. I do prefer Value and Criteria.. still not sure how you can affirm without it. Any other "standards" can be easily challenged if a neg opponent calls a warranted BS.
Neg - I will allow policy positions but please understand that in a question of SHOULD/OUGHT that they don't apply the same. The goal isnt 1 man CX debate. In my humble but accurate opinion you do alot more work to achieve less results. Have fun and think of how u can be more productive by making life more complicated for your opponent rather than yourself. Again on reading Topicality I feel it is super abusive in LD because there are other ways to pressure your opponent into dropping arguments etc. You truly have to prove it ... it just makes more sense to me to just read a counterdefinition or to give a definition and now you get to redefine the round how you see it. Let's make life simple when its an option.
Ok after seeing too many rounds where this has become an issue I have to mention the following... BE NICE / CORDIAL to your opponents in the round and as a general policy for being a good human to each other. Rudeness and aggression will make me more likely to vote for the team that plays the game fairly and professionally. In CX I am used to the banter that teams have developed with teams that they hit all the time or the level of coyness blended with sass of an LD round but remember overall PF was intended to have the feel of a lay town meeting so I recommend keep it simple and it doesnt hurt to say the topic multiple times. NOTE no matter what popular opinions and trends try to tell you this isnt micro CX so dont overcomplicate your life. Tell the story and AGAIN Keep it simple / Im an avg joe US taxpayer ... logic and confidence are key be captain obvious on my flow why you win !!
Ariel Shin Paradigm
2019 Update: I only judge 1-2 tournaments a year so please bear that in mind.
I debated for four years for Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles, CA from 2010 to 2014. I went to TOC my senior year.
Theory/T: Fine with me. I think theory/T is a great strategic tool but if you run it just to mess with your opponent and the round goes terribly I won't be very happy. I default to competing interps, drop the argument, and no RVI's absent those arguments being made.
Please be super clear on how you want me to evaluate things. Spend time weighing and explicitly stating how I should vote.
Kritiks: Also fine with kritiks. If its really complex, make sure you explain it. If I don't understand it, I won't vote off of it.
Policy Args: Also fine with me. Do a lot of impressive weighing, and get higher speaks.
Skep/Permissibility/Presumption: Not a big fan but if you win the argument, I will vote off of it.
Micropol: Not the greatest fan. Ask me about the specific position before the round.
Speed: I'm fine if you go fast but you're going to need to go a lot slower than your fastest because I haven't flowed since VBI 2016. I will say slower around 3-5 times before I give up.
If you have any questions, you can ask me before the round.
Rich Simpkins Paradigm
I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them. One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down. That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative. So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.
Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed. If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me. Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear. Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context. Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.
I'm evolving on flashing. I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting. This is an unfortunate habit. I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine. I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent. But you still have to be understood by your judge! Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain. I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing! It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them.
On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says. Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash. So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!
This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that
1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution. For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense. If it doesn't, then not so much. I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.
2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event. I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience. That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.
My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Hannah Smith Paradigm
I like creative arguments, you can run anything. I am fine with speed, I will say clear once and then put my pen down and stop flowing you. Remember to signpost, and make sure to list clear voters at the end of your last speech.
Preston Stolte Paradigm
Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS
Years Judging: 8
******POLICY 2018: I did not work a camp this summer and thus do not have a deep knowledge of this topic, please don't assume I know all the acronyms/inner workings of the immigration system**********
borrowing this from Ben Crossan, if I have judged you in the past/if I judge you, feel free to fill out this form and I will post responses at the bottom.
TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, tech > truth, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful and certainly malleable.
*If you are an LD debater, this should give you a good idea of how to debate in front of me. Feel free to ask more specific questions before the round.*
Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy.
This being said, if I am judging you in LD, here are a few things I've realized about myself that you should know: I find myself seeing most 'traditional/phil' strategies to be lacking in offense and largely ill explained; I think bad theory arguments are wildly unpersuasive and generally default to drop the arg; I think 'spikes' (especially when undisclosed) are not arguments and generally give the neg decent amount of leeway to make responses once they actually become warranted arguments.
-Truth v Tech: I find myself more frequently deciding close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am frequently lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, as I get older I find myself much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.
-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will call for evidence if said evidence is contested or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. If I do call for evidence I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks.
That being said, there is ALWAYS a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.
-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow. If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks. If I say clear it is because I cannot hear/flow you and you probably want me to have your arguments, if you hear me say clear and your opponent doesnt get more clear, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to ask me before CX what arguments I did/did not get on my flow because I don't see why you should have to answer arguments that I didn't even have flowed. this seems to be a problem that is especially true in LD.
-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is becoming an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.
The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.
Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.
-Things that will earn you speaker points: being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, politeness, well executed strategies/arguments.
-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.
Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.
Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. Most of my debate experience has been involved in the critical side of debate, if this is the only reason you are going for the K in front of me - please don't.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that teams who read Ks more often than not don't know how to articulate links to the plan, but are pretty proficient at reading links to the status quo that someone has typed up into a block on their computer. The more I judge, the more I find myself voting aff in these debates on some combination of a permutation/no link debate absent the neg winning a significant framing question.
I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I also am getting tired of having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am becoming more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.
CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.
DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on whats going on.
Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about Latin America your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by these things
If you had to give advice to a team who had this judge in the back of the room, what would you tell them?
--Do whatever you’re good at, he’ll be down for it.
--Read your normal arguments, but make sure you explain them correctly and are able to connect your arguments to the 2nr/2ar explanation.
--read what you feel comfortable explaining and is most strategic in your eyes
On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the least similar and 10 being the most similar, rate how you thought the round went down matched up to this judge's assessment of the round based on the RFD
What was the quality of this judge's RFD?
What was the quality of this judge's post-round comments?
What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is familiar with?
--I feel like he has a wide base of knowledge over a broad range of literature, which helps a lot in both Policy v Policy debates and Policy v K debates.
--Topic specific literature of policy affs/DA's and mostly familiar with the literature in the round
--Policy and Kritik
What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is unfamiliar with?
--Maybe the pomo bs people have are reading (baudrillard, bataille, etc.)
--This was only for a specific post-round question, but the judge wasn't 100% sure about ontology cards to read when aff vs settler colonialism.
--LD Moral Frameworks/LD Analytic Philosophy debates
Do you have any additional comments?
--Very thorough and helpful RFD!
--Make sure to be explicit in not allowing judge intervention, ie "dont kick this for them"
Zubair Sukhyani Paradigm
I'm cool with everything
email chain: email@example.com
Kim Watson Paradigm
I am a traditional judge. I want to understand what you say. Diction, pace, volume are part of the presentation. Being a professional also means you look and act the part of a professional! I want to see sportsmanship and grace. I also want to see you enjoying yourself in the debate.
Debaters, you must make quality points not necessarily quantity points. Remember, it needs to have facts backed up. You have been researching these points for month, use your research to support your views. Use the research to turn your opponents arguments your way when you can.
The purpose of debate is to persuade and sway an argument. This is done with facts and logic. Know your stuff! Debaters need to make logical arguments that are easy to follow. Good debaters should be GREAT listeners adn are always respectfully listening to the opposition in order to counter their points.
Debaters should not use progressive arguments and should not spread. I promise it will not be rewarded in my rounds.
Walter Willis Paradigm
I am Dyspolity@gmail on email chains.
Who I am:
Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine then, but in the speeches that win or lose you the round I may not be following you if you are circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.
I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Guyer in Denton. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.
I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.
Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.
Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is not one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.
Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral.
Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable.
Circuit level speed.
I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy, but I vastly prefer that the specific conditions be stipulated in the constructive. So, I dislike conditional arguments that are not presented cogently.
I default aff unless convinced otherwise. I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K affs that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face.
Rudeness and arrogance.
Kris Wright Paradigm
Wenjing Zhou Paradigm
1 years experience judging
I am a parent of a LD debater
No ld in hs
don't judge many rounds (10-) per year
probably will have affiny toward util