Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational

2019 — Colleyville, TX/US

Megan Barnes Paradigm

9 rounds

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.

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 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

8 rounds

I'm cool w anything.

Karen Buls Paradigm

9 rounds

Not Submitted

Tamara Choate Paradigm

8 rounds

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

8 rounds

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

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Brijan Kana Paradigm

8 rounds

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. Debaters start with 28 speaks. Losing Speaker Points: I will say clear twice before deducting speaker points During CX, attack the speech, not the debater- if you harass your opponent in cross examination, speaker points will be deducted. Gaining 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.

DAs - 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. 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

9 rounds

Not Submitted

Vicki Musall Paradigm

9 rounds

Not Submitted

Shubha Nerur Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

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.

About me:

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

Not Submitted

Ellena Prokopeas Paradigm

Not Submitted

Caroline Rose Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alisha Samnani Paradigm

Not Submitted

Benjamin Schnuck Paradigm

9 rounds

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:


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. I've run things like wipeout, timecube, shrek K, jesus cp, etc. 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:

-Always Roadmap

-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

8 rounds

Colleyville Heritage High School, TX

I like to say I've done a little bit of everything, but predominantly NSDA/TFA Public Forum.

Public Forum:

I'll flow, just signpost and weigh to make my life easy. If you want specifics just ask, otherwise debate the way you usually do. (I plan on adding my FAQs to my paradigm as they're asked)

Lincoln Douglass:

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.

World Schools:

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 ESPECIALLY IN OUTSIDE COUNTRIES.

Vishal Sivamani Paradigm

9 rounds

Not Submitted

Samad Virani Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

joanna wang Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted