Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational
2019 — Colleyville, TX/US
Megan Barnes Paradigm
Debate is an educational activity, and part of that education is two people negotiating on the terms of the round. Do what you need to do for both competitors to have the best round possible.
That said, if you're somebody whose case is claiming end-of-world level harms, have very strong links, and the fewer the better. I'm not a fan of scorched-Earth arguments that are tenuous at best.
Spreading is fine, but enunciating, and know your cards. It's more distracting (and detrimental to your overall speech) if you're going fast and stumbling rather than simply slowing down a bit. I am not a judge that will yell clear - the burden of clarity is on the speaker, not the listener.
I am a flow judge, but have been known to not take as many notes for 1A if it's a stock case I've already heard 8 rounds of.
Ali Bharwani Paradigm
I'm cool w anything.
Karen Buls Paradigm
Tamara Choate Paradigm
I am a classical judge so am unimpressed with modern techniques designed to win without meaningful back-and-forth dialogue between debaters. I am listening not only for you to convince me that your criterion is best, but also for how you respond to your opponent to promote meaningful discourse. Respect the event (air five if you can tell me a fact about the original Lincoln-Douglas debates) by being professional before, during, and after the debate, including being courteous to one another.
Richard Ditto Paradigm
I am a new judge and I may need some "coaching" until I have a full understanding of how the different methods of debate flow from beginning to end. I don't need debaters to speak slow but less than "full speed" will be helpful. Consider your ability to 'spread'. I am reluctant to interrupt a speaker, especially in the middle of a case reading.
Sanjay Gera Paradigm
LD Parent lay judge. You can speak at a good pace but no spreading please. Providing clear voters will always get you extra points. More progressive debate structures (Ks, conterplans ....) - Do it at your own risk!
Erika Jewell Paradigm
Brijan Kana Paradigm
I have competed in every event under the "debate" umbrella EXCEPT for CX. To be clear, I’m not as technically proficient as a policy judge would be- you have a better chance persuading me than bombarding me with jargon. Refer to the categories below for specific events.Speaker Points:
Debaters start with 28 speaks.
How to Lose Speaker Points: I will say clear twice before deducting speaker points. During cross examination, attack the speech, not the debater- if you harass your opponent in cross examination, speaker points will be deducted.
How to Gain Speaker Points: Be a generally clear speaker. Slow down on tags if you’re spreading.
LD I spent a lot of my time doing traditional, "by the book" LD, but I’ve seen my fair share of progressive debate. Debate with the style that you're most comfortable debating, but know that I decide winners on who best carries as much of their case as possible to the end of the round.
Kritiks - I’m unlikely to buy alts that rely on the way I sign the ballot.
Theory/T- Basic understanding.
DA's - I prefer a traditionally structured neg case over DA’s.
PF Debaters should try and stick to an "ask-answer" format during grand cross. I know that grand crosses get messy, and debaters begin to argue and explain their case after someone responds to a question. If you begin to explain your case rather than asking questions, I will deduct speaks. Overall, I decide winners by whichever debaters appear more synced in terms of teamwork. That means debaters who extend their partner's arguments as opposed to only creating new ones will win over those who have their separate debates with the corresponding speaker on the other team. (I want 1st speakers to clash with 2nd speakers instead of speakers having 2 debates).
World Schools Debate I was on the NSDA Lone Star WSD team for 2 years. I understand that this event can be hard to fully grasp due to the focus on presentation over just argumentation.
1st speakers: Present your case. Do not read off the paper, especially if it's a prepared motion. I will be more lenient on impromptu motions.
2nd speakers: Pace yourself. Don't rush through offense or constructive, or else I'll deduct speaks.
3rd speakers: Set up the 4th speech's voters. Give me a hint at what I will have to be looking at in terms of clash points in the round. If you can do this better than your opponent, then you have a better chance at winning my vote. (Note: I'm a huge fan of the 3 question structure. Ask me about it before the round if you're not familiar with it.)
4th speakers: Summarize the voters as best you can. If you cannot give me decent voters, then I have no reason to vote for you.
Elijah Mellish Paradigm
Vicki Musall Paradigm
Shubha Nerur Paradigm
Seth Phillips Paradigm
General CX/LD/PFD Preferences:
Professionalism and civility are required and weigh heavily in speakerpoints
Standing CX/Crossfire; seated Grand Crossfire; look at judge in CX/Crossfire
Don't use open CX/Crossfire as a crutch (I will dock speaks if it's clear one partner is doing all the heavy lifting)
I may critique after round, but only if both teams request. If I do critique, I will generally not disclose and I will keep it brief as I write a lot on the ballot for the benefit of your coach.
My view on speed (spreading) is that I will flow it, but a speaker should not sacrifice articulation for speed. If articulation is an issue, please slow down as I have some nerve deafness in my left ear, so you must be clear. However, PFD is an event where spreading is highly discouraged.
I'm a rule follower, so if there is a tournament prohibition on open CX, email chains, prompting, etc., don't do it!
CX Argument Preferences:
I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments
I will consider and vote on:
- Disadvantages almost always (i.e., if properly weighed against Aff advantages/turns)
- Counterplans almost always (however, must show solvency for Aff harms and not link to any DAs/other offense against Aff)
- Kritiks rarely (i.e., if properly weighed; compare worlds). Alt needs to compete. "Reject" isn't sufficient.
- Conditionality arguments sometimes (e.g., unless team offering argument argues otherwise, I will assume an unconditional status on all augments offered)
- Theory sometimes (particularly if there is clear evidence of in-round abuse such as over-limiting topic, denying fair ground, etc.)
- Topicality sometimes (e.g., if clear in-round abuse; over-limiting topic)
- Inherency sometimes (i.e., if plan is already in status quo, then no reason to vote for Aff)
- Solvency/Workability almost always (i.e., a plan that doesn't work, doesn't solve for status quo harms/claim advantages and thus doesn't provide a net benefit)
LD Argument Preferences:
If you run policy/critical arguments, I tend to vote as a policy-maker (see CX paradigm above). Traditional Value/Criterion arguments are also fine by me in LD.
I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments.
Empirical examples are as important, if not more important, than reading "unique", esoteric cards.
PFD Argument Preferences:
While I am a coach, this event was designed to be accessible for "lay" judges, so please adapt accordingly.
Empirical examples are very useful and don't necessarily require a source, if general knowledge.
While framework is not essential, it is often helpful in close rounds.
Congressional Debate Argument Preferences:
Structure and content are both essential. In each speech, there should be a clear intro with statement of position on resolution and preview of main points. Main points should be supported by the type of evidence you would expect a member of Congress to rely upon for a speech before the House/Senate. Responses to fellow members and a discussion of how the legislation would impact one's "constituents" are part of the "debate" aspect of this event. Walking transitions between points and when answering questions is expected.
Parliamentary Procedure and PO duties:
Efficiency, use of proper voting procedures and correct motions to move along debate are an obligation of ALL members of the chamber and should not have to be repeatedly prompted by the PO. The PO's primary duties are to keep speech time and recognize speakers/questioners based on a strict, impartial adherence to precedence/recency. Do not run for PO if you do not feel prepared to execute these duties. Serving as PO is never a guarantee of breaking; a PO's performance is weighed against the PO expectations outlined above.
Speech/Debate Coach at Prosper High School, Prosper, Texas
Licensed Texas Attorney
BA/MA in Communication Studies, Texas Tech University
Doctorate of Jurisprudence, Southern Methodist University
Member of LGBTQ community
Pronouns: Prefer he/him
Naveen Pinjani Paradigm
Hi! I'm a parent judge. I've judged LD a few times but not enough to where I'm comfortable with anything. Most of the judging was done in novice LD tournaments, so I'm used to flowing trad. I understand that I may not be at the same judging level as other judges you're probably used to, but I'm going to do the best I can to make this a productive space for the both of us.
PF is supposed to appeal to lay judges- that means
tell me what i'm voting off of
no spreading/theory-- pf isn't ld or policy
Speed- I'm about a 6/10 on speed. Slightly over conversational works, but I CANNOT flow spreading! However, if you do decide to spread, I want your speech docs before every speech. Regardless if I have your doc or not, if you are spreading and I cannot clearly hear you, speaks will be docked. If you're going to spread at least do it properly. (But I will tell you this- you may get an advantage if you talk slower in the first place, that way I can really understand and believe your point)
Speaks- Pretty much like any other judge. 25 if you are being verbally abusive to your opponent (yes, that includes cursing) I can tolerate a few bad words here and there, but no f bombs, or being derogatory to your partner in any way. I will initally grant some leniency on that. But debate isn't an excuse to bully your opponent- I understand being aggressive and cocky, but not to the point where you are hurting your partner emotionally. I will give a 30 for a downright amazing speaker. To get that 30, I am looking for clear, precise, and concise speaking. Generally, my speaks go from 27-28.5 for an average speaker, and for a good one 28.5-30. I do not disclose speaks.
In a round what I want to see
Since I'm new to the circuit, I have a pretty simple set of things I'm looking for in a round-
I want a debate where I can easily understand what I'm voting off of. That includes voters and weighing. Don't expect me to do the weighing work for you when I'm giving my RFD, I probably won't be able to do it, and it's not my job. That's your job as a debater. The impact is nuke war? Great! I won't vote on "nuke war" but I will vote on extinction (implicate and flush out your impact- why does it matter to me or my ballot?)
Clash is great in round, I'm probably bored and only here because our school needed a judge, or my daughter forced me-- change my mind!
As for framework, please link your impacts to it. Philosophy is hard to understand, so explain it properly. I can understand a basic idea of deontology, but the flowery language can be tricky. Consequentialist VC's are pretty straightforward.
LARP- I don't have experience judging larping, but if you do decide to run a plan/counterplan/da that's ok with me. Try and emphasize the the plan text.
Theory- I can understand theory but it isn't a voting issue for me-- unless you give me a reason as to why it should be. Try to stay clear of those- I can't guarantee I will be fully competent in judging that.
K's- try to refrain from those- I won't be able to understand.
T- Same thing as K's.
keep track of your own time-- if I catch you stealing prep, speaks are dropped.
Interact with me during speeches, talk to the judge not at the judge.
Most importantly, have fun!
* I also don't have any predispositions to a certain side- I come in with a clean slate ready to hear all arguments. But, if the debate is super close, I will default to neg as it is the status quo. However, to avoid that, I try to be as flow as I can.
If you have any questions before round please contact me through email--
I look forward to hearing you debate!
Ellena Prokopeas Paradigm
Caroline Rose Paradigm
Alisha Samnani Paradigm
Benjamin Schnuck Paradigm
I debated in high school for four years and competed at UIL State, among other high level/international tournaments. Additionally, I earned over 700 NSDA points during my time as a competitor. With that said, I know debate and am prepared for any type of debate you throw at me. As a judge I am what most people would call a gamemaker, I believe debate is a game and I'm prepared for whatever you give me. However, there are some exceptions:
1) FOLLOW THE TOURNAMENT RULES, I don't care if my preferences contradict the tournament rules, ALWAYS FOLLOW THE TOURNAMENT RULES FIRST AND THEN FOLLOW MY PARADIGMS.
2) Absolutely no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/xenophobia. If you raise any argument of these themes, you will get as little speaker points as I can give you as well as make you lose the round. However, I will not accept baseless accusations that your opponent is racist, etc. I have a similar definition about my perception as Justice Potter Stewart said in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I shall not attempt to define... and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." Although his subject matter was different than what I'm talking about, the sentiment is similar when defining what is and what isn't offensive.
3) Insults, Teasing, and being aggressive are a no go. We're here to learn and have fun, don't be rude.
Like I said, I will judge anything. Just contextualize it, if I want to hear some funny case I can just read it, don't run it just because you know I'll listen. I want a good debate and I want you to bring the best you have. I love speed and you can go full speed with me, just stay clear. I believe debate is free-form art, do with that form as you like.
As for specific notes about args:
- I like advocacy/non-plan cases but I need it contextualized for the real world. Show me what the world of the advocacy looks like, saying the case is a good idea isn't good enough.
- Method vs Method debates are fun, one of my most important values in judging that sort of round is root cause.
Additional notes to make me like you:
-I love wild kritiks and kritik affirmatives (but you must explain it well enough, i.e. don't throw some crazy kritik plan out there without contextualizing it with impacts, etc)
-New in the 2 is fine, I'm not going to buy any abuse arguments unless they sandbag like 5 new args in the 2
-If you make good puns I'll give you more speaks
-I love speed but if you go supersonic get me a copy of your speech
-I'm a sucker for quality analytics, beyond just blocks that you've written down. Show me that you know what's happening in round.
-disclosure theory always sucks
Katherine Shadman Paradigm
Senior at Colleyville Heritage High School, TX
4 Yeas of Public Forum, a few tournaments in all other debate events (except for policy, but I'm working on that)
I'll flow, just signpost and weigh to make my life easy. I think responses, especially to turns, are strategic in 2nd rebuttal, but frontlines aren't required. With the new 3 minute summaries, defense is no longer sticky in 1st summary. Please collapse, and make it clear if you are, don't make it look like a straight-up drop. If you want specifics just ask, otherwise debate the way you usually do.
I don't need to be on an email chain unless you are planning on ripping through your case. With that said, I can handle clear spreading. I will prioritize fw but I default to argument extensions (claim, WARRANT, and impact) if it becomes a wash. Also, I don't know who decided it should become a thing, please stand in your speeches (unless I'm judging you at like 11 pm or there is a physical reason not to do so).
Speaks: 28-30, 30 in bubble rounds
+speaks: funny (but not rude), weighing and voters
-speaks: rude, sexist, homophobic, racist, etc.
Do what you want, just remember that style points are worth a lot more and I stick to the rubric. Give me a cohesive narrative throughout all 4 speeches. Also, this format of debate is more of a discussion. You should be interacting with arguments and giving comparative analysis.
For the sake of time and complaining, I will disclose who won the round if you want me to but put everything else on the ballot. I will do my best to be as detailed as possible in terms of speaking and how the arguments were portrayed on my end. However, if you have any specific questions about what worked/didn't work so you know what to try in later rounds, ask and I'll let you know.
Please email me if you have any questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
Vishal Sivamani Paradigm
Samad Virani Paradigm
joanna wang Paradigm
if you read the 900 million recession card and do math to find the ACTUAL number of people you impact ill give you a high five (and 30s)
heyyyy what’s poppin
i debated at colleyville for 4 years on the yeehaw and ~national~ circuit but was ehhhh so don’t think too highly of me
im really trying not to do a lot of external work for you on the flow (trust me you don’t want me to. it gets messy and stressful) so pls go big picture/tech with some narrative and weigh (WEIGHING AND WARRANTING IS SO BEAUTIFUL) bc i dont wanna hear a bunch of 16 year old freshmen ranting about how they got judge screwed
anyway y’all have 3 min summaries and prep times now so u better collapse or i’m gonna throw my pencil across the room. this makes my life and ur life a lot easier
bring me food or make me laugh (its not hard) or use ur tabletote at the highest setting and ur guaranteed 30s (i’ll only dock speaks if ur abusive/rude/just not a cool dude)
just have a good (AND FUN) round and try not to run something progressive (ks, theory (especially disclosure), ddev etc.) bc i literally won’t know how to evaluate it i’m that incompetent (if you reaaaallllyyyyyy need to pls explain why i should vote on it in non SAT level words)
^this is my partners paradigm, it’s way better than mine. i agree with 99% of it. if you see her tell her i said thanks (not tall brown girl).
feel free to ask questions, i’m just tired of typing