Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational

2019 — Colleyville, TX/US

Malka Ahmed Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anthony Brown Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Cagle Paradigm

NO SPREADING!!!!!!!!! I cannot emphasize this point enough! Debate should be about how well you know your case, can support your case with evidence, use logic to link your case and evidence together, and use logic and evidence to counter your opponents arguments. Speaking so fast that the judge or your opponent can't understand you doesn't mean you are a good debater, it just means you can talk really fast (and maybe not even say anything). I don't like winning on technicalities. Spreading is a means to winning on technicalities. Speaking fast so you can get lots of arguments in that your opponent will drop is my definition of winning on technicalities. I realize this is a game and you are trying to play that game but I also believe this should benefit you in life. There is no use for spreading in life, period!

I don't care how you want to run your case. All I ask is that you tell me what you are going to do then do that. Also, please use logical reasoning to link your argument together as well as with your evidence. Don't skip steps. Don't use reasoning such as If A then B therefore Z. In doing this you have skipped lots of steps. I'm not saying the conclusion of Z is wrong just that you haven't proved that Z is correct. Don't make me skip steps to get to your conclusion because I won't, that is your job. An example of this is the nuclear war argument. You can't say things like if a particular political party wins an election then nuclear war is imminent. This is complete non-sense and shows me that you have no idea how to reason. Solving for nuclear war is hard and requires lots of steps and evidence to get there. Don't use that argument unless you are prepared to do the work to get me there.

I really dislike it when the debtor just reads their case. I'm not expecting you to have it memorized but know it well enough that you can talk to me about it. If you just read it that doesn't show me that you know anything about your case, just that you can read. You should be able to present your case in a way that shows me either you wrote your own case or that you know it well enough to be able to speak without having to rely on your computer for everything. Obviously if you are a Novice then I don't expect so much from you. However, both Novice and Varsity should be able to pronounce correctly all the words you use.

Your summary/final focus speeches should tie everything back together for me. Tell me what arguments your opponent dropped. Give me voters. I realize this is a game and you are throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks but lets pretend that is not what is going on. So please don't say things like "Judge, if you don't believe that then how about..." You better believe, or at least act like you believe, your whole case or I'm not going to.

Stef Cambra Paradigm

8 rounds

PF Paradigms

I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be professional- yes I like it when people stand for cross examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents speeches but also to their team member's speeches. And the other way to pick up my ballot is to focus on cross examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.

Please do not ask me what my qualifications are to judge.

Interp Paradigms

I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. I don't need trigger warnings, I don't need you to cater to me because that's not what speech is about. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.

For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.

For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, well-defined points supported with a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.

Donald Cox Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Harry Davis Paradigm

8 rounds

A debate is not won by the fastest talker or the one who quotes the most evidence cards. It is won through argument. Ultimately, I decide the winner as one would decide a civil lawsuit--by the preponderance of the evidence. This means you must quantify, quantify, quantify. Both sides must quantify the degree of benefit from their respective plans and the degree of harm due to either the absence of their plan or the implementation of the other side's plan. In the end, the team that quantifies the most compellingly and effectively will win the debate.

Nick Hernandez Paradigm

8 rounds

2yrs VCX 1yr PFD experience in high school. Judging for two years since graduating Colleyville in 2016

2NR Frontlining is fine.

I prefer a happy medium between spreading and normal speaking speed.

Underviews are important, know when you are about to run out of time and wrap up accordingly.

Like teams that aren't afraid to kick their arguments and put all of their effort towards what they have the best chance to win with.

Colin Hodgkiss Paradigm

Speed isn't a problem so long as you are clear. If you read the K make sure you explain the alt.

My email is, I would prefer to be added to the email chain.

Robey Holland Paradigm

I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain:

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.


· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.

The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.


· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.


· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.


· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.


· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.


· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.


· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

Jordan Innerarity Paradigm

For my general paradigm, I consider myself tab. There are no arguments I do and don’t like. I will judge the arguments presented in the round and I don’t want to impose my own beliefs or arguments into the round. You have to tell my why the arguments made in the round matter. If you fail to give me a way in which to evaluate the round, I will default to a policy maker. Being a policy maker, I am looking for the negative team to run disadvantages, counter plans, kritiks, and anything else. As a policy maker, I am looking for you to terminalize your impacts. Why specifically is nuclear war bad? Does it kill millions of people? Just saying dehumanization or nuclear war is bad isn’t an impact. I will gladly listen to counter plans, theory arguments and Kritiks. My only advice on the k is to tell me what the role of the ballot is. Why is my ballot key to your alt?


I will vote on T when there is proven abuse. I need to see in-round abuse for me to pull the trigger. I think T is a legitimate tool for a negative team, but I strongly urge the team that goes all in for T to make sure they can prove in-round abuse. If the aff is just failing to make arguments on the T, I will vote for it, but my preference is for in-round abuse to be occurring.

I am not a fan of LD 1AC spikes. I honestly don't think that the Aff gets to remove ground from the negative. I don't think these arguments are legitimate. Let the neg make claims and then argue against them. I will tell you now, that I WILL NOT vote on them. I see them as a waste of time for you to run and they are highly abusive. I also rarely vote on RVIs. If you plan on trying to run spikes in the 1AC, I am not the judge for you. I will give the Neg a lot of access to simple arguments to knock down your spikes.


I think it is important that you are an ethical and nice person in the debate. It is ok for the round to get heated, but I don't see the need to be rude to your opponent. This will result in a hit to your speaker points.

I don't have a problem with speed, but make sure that you are clearly telling me your tags. Slow down on the tag if you can. Be clear in your transitions. I like next or and to let me know you are moving from the end of a card to another tagline. The same thing applies to your plan text or alt. Slow down for the plan text/alt or repeat it for me.

Aarti Kapoor Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kattie Leito Paradigm

8 rounds

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-Present)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments for ten years. I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

Sam Loh Paradigm

Sam Loh / Updated for start of '19 season

All email chains:


Debated for Plano West: 2016-2018

Assistant PF Coach Hebron: August 2018 - June 2019 (Temporary Judging Conflict)

Colleyville Heritage: June 2019 - Present (Permanent Judging Conflict)


I am putting this up here so you don't miss it when reading the whole paradigm. Make sure you read paradigms carefully so there are no "surprises" at the end of the round. Changes have also been bolded in the main paradigm.

With the 3 minute summary change:

-Extensions in summary must include the full argument now (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact) and yes you still need warrants. If you do not extend the full argument, do not expect me to give you offense

-There is no more "sticky defense". Defense must be extended in first summary now or it is dropped

-If you do not do weighing in summary your speaks will tank. I mean it. They literally gave you an entire extra minute.

-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in first summary (adopted from the MSJ KW paradigm). This is to encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.

-That same rule goes for "going for everything in summary". If you are one of those people who thinks more summary time = more case offense to go for, you will not be happy with speaks.

-My threshold for dropping speaks on finding cards has gone down. I am tired of waiting for people to pull up evidence. I will give you 1:30 to find evidence before I start dropping speaks. For every portion of 30s you go over, it's -0.5. I drop the evidence at 3 minutes. If you disclose full text, a doc with proper cut cards, or hyperlink to original ev, you are protected from this.


o LD/CX Shortcuts (LD/CXers I implore that you also read my LD section for your own sake)


Plans, DA's - 1

CP's, PICs - 2

Util Framing - 1/2

Theory - 2 (This probably goes to a 5 if you try going for something like meta meta theory)

T -2/3 (Not super experienced with Extra-T, Effects-T and args of that sort)

K - 3/4 (I should be able to follow generally as long as you warrant well)

Non-Util/Phil Frameworks - 3/4 (Deon is alright, ontology starts becoming tricky)

Non-T Affs - 5

Tricks - 5 (I don't even know what the definition of this is or what it looks like)

o PF'ers looking to do strikes:

- I do not have a preference of "true vs untrue" arguments, if you win the argument, you win offense. Nor do I have a different threshold for the quality of the response that needs to be made. Everything should be warranted. Trying to make unwarranted "truth>tech" responses will hurt your speaks

- I inherently think that all case level arguments are dispositional. I am very unreceptive to "condo good" on case substance.

- I tend to like rounds that are more tech and line by line in nature over slower big picture debates. That being said, I will still evaluate either.

- Aff fiat goes as far as the specific wording of the resolution. The aff does not get to fiat out of procedural negative disadvantages that happen as a result of the passing of the plan (Ex: Politics DAs or NRA control on the UBC topic)

- I am very receptive to progressive arguments. If you are a team that does not want/is unprepared to debate anything beyond case level substance you may want to strike me.

- I am pro disclosure. If you are a team who is adamantly against the practice of disclosure and do not want to risk debating disclosure theory, I would consider striking me.


PF Paradigm:

Paradigm is kind of long but truth be told I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2R has to cover turns or I consider them dropped.

3) Defense isn't sticky with a 3 minute summary.

4) CX non binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in speech to try and get out of a concession

5) Don't like "risk of offense" or phrases along the lines of "our ev is good at saying ____"

6) Anything that is not contested in the speech after it is read (except case substance) becomes functionally conceded

7) Need parallelism in summary/ff, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) no new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it (basically dispositional). I will not buy kicks unless you concede defense the opponents have read in which that case is on them. Do not try reading "condo good", I will be very unreceptive

12) PF is a debate event, speaks are given on how well you debate not how well you speak

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences not related to argumentation

-Preflowing: Preferably before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes i'm docking .5 speaks for every extra minute you take.

-Coin Flip: I'll be asking for sides and speaking order before the round starts so I don't really care. Flip outside if you want

-Sitting/Standing/etc.: In perfect honesty, I don't care. If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. It's probably most appropriate if you stand during speeches but if it's a late round and you're tired from running around the tournament all day I don't mind if you sit.

-Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD: General thought- post round discussion is good for the activity.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. All I ask is that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

o Postround me if you want to. I don't dock speaks unless you make morally reprehensible statements. I don't care if you're not directly affiliated with the competitors in the room and are just watching - if you disagree feel free to speak out.

o I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

-Spectators: In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. On the other hand, prelims is a bit of a different story. I very strongly believe that parents or coaches of a team competing in the round should be allowed to watch. I would be pretty upset if a judge told me I wasn't allowed to sit and observe how my kids debate a round. For people non-affiliated (Ex. bringing friends from a different program) : that choice I leave to the debaters. If someone doesn't want them to watch, I'm going to ask them to leave so don't be surprised when that happens. I am also not a fan of people sitting in rounds, flowing the AC and NC and then leaving. If something comes up like you get pulled for a judge assignment, feel free to leave but if I observe anybody consistently engaging in leaving after the first speeches it's probably a tab report.

General Evaluation

I generally consider myself tabula rasa and I’ll evaluate any argument you give me on an offense/defense paradigm as long as it’s properly warranted and impacted. However, given that, don’t run something that’s homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.

-Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

-I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. The only things I dislike are massive card dumps. However, please be logical as to what needs to be carded. Don't tell me that x has gone down without providing a stat.

-At least for me, well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

-Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Any of this has to be done in the speech following. Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

-I won't intervene on abuse unless it's conditional case arguments. If your opponents are being abusive please call them out. However on the flip side the more abusive you are the lower my threshold for how much of an "they're abusive" arg needs to be made for me to consider dropping whatever is being considered abusive. General guidelines: NIBs and other strategy orientated tactics like specific framing will require a shell, super abusive args like conditional cp's and floating pics just require you to point out they're abusive.

-Just for clarification this does not mean that you can just say "they're abusive" when they run theory - you have to engage in the shell debate but there's a higher likelihood I just end up washing more friv theory/t shells and evaluating case as long as you make responses. Additionally, if it's blatantly obvious you're running up against novices, attempting to run anything progressive will tank your speaks.

-Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not be a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

-If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo. However, I would be willing to listen to arguments in round on going about default otherwise and I think I would be strongly compelled to buy a warranted default first argument

-General Idea: If you don't do a good job responding to terminal defense and just say vote for us on risk, don't expect to win my ballot. Having minimum offense v. having no offense are two completely different things. This is a really big issue with me because I think going solely for "risk" is lazy debate that doesn't require you to win a 100% strength of link into your impact. I'll still evaluate risk but make sure you're not using it to clear untouched terminal defense.

My position on "risk of offense": I think it's reasonable but only to a certain extent. I don't think the aff can expect to win rounds just by saying "risk of offense" without actually responding to anything terminal. This would break the game because if the aff can always win via default risk, neg can't win rounds. I am inclined to give risk of offense that is accessing some kind of weak strength of link into their offense and using risk to emphasize the importance of the possibility of the link triggering the impact. It would be even better if you do the analysis on why risk of that link occurring is so important.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

-Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. Yes, I'm calling those claims because they aren't arguments. Debate isn't I make a claim, you make a claim, and we argue with only claims without thinking about the reasoning those claims are set on. Using these alone will not clear defense for you on my flow and excessive attempts will lose you speaks.

-Meta weighing is important and if such a thing exists, I would be willing to hear arguments about a second layer of meta weighing. If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing

Speech Preferences:

-Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

-I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

-If for some reason you feel that it is necessary to go for preemptive frontlines in the 1R I'm fine with it

-If you want to use half or so of your time on the second constructive and the rest of the time responding to opponent case, go for it.

-Highly would prefer line by line (For the majority of you debaters it probably increases your chance of getting my ballot compared big picture)


-If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your interp or framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my fwork for evaluation. If one side drops their framework, I will default to whichever is left in the round, this includes second constructive if first speaking team presents a framework. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Anytime after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default util absent framing but it may change depending on what I think is the most meaningful interp of the res. Ofc if you present and warrant your own fwork this doesn't really matter

~Philosophy Type Stuff:

-I really don't think any of this will matter since a lot of the depth here is K stuff (reference K's below) but for those who like to use these args as framing

My order of comfort in evaluating goes:

1) Consequentialism - I'm fine with it

2) Deontology - I have some understanding of this, you should be fine as long as you don't go too deep or draw really obscure lines between ideas

3) Ontology - I have a somewhat/very surface level understanding and how it functions in the round. You probably will have to do a bit of explaining of these if you go for them but I might have a very general idea of what you're saying.

4) It's more high theory but I've read a bit of Baudrillard. Do I understand it well? No. I am willing to evaluate it? Sure.

5) Not listed - I'll try my best to understand but chances are I'm going to be completely lost and will have no clue how to evaluate. Would advise you to stay away for the sake of your own W/L record.


-Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate but it is still possible to get my ballot if you don't collapse at the cost of speaks.

-I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing in second final unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. If you think it helps start in rebuttal if you really want. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final

-Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

-No new terminalization of impacts in second final


-Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. Like please spend at least a second on it to avoid confusion. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.


-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new ev in first summary

-First summary must extend defense (I.e. it is no longer sticky). Otherwise it's dropped

-My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then I need you to do some minimal warrant impact extension for me to give you offense

-Shadow extension of turns from rebuttal to ff will be weighed as defense but will not be a voting issue. Turns in this context means a real turn that has both the offensive and defensive implications.

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization. Even if the opponents extend the impact, you will need to re-implicate why the turn/s means I vote for you

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

-Note that running any of these against novices will tank your speaks

-CP's: Would generally prefer if you don't run these since coaches have differing views on the legality of these in PF but I'll still evaluate them (unless operating under NSDA rules). No conditional cp's - I will have a super low threshold on dropping the arg if you're called out for being abusive. .

-K's: Generally speaking I'll vote off them. Note that I'm not experienced in the K debate and doing anything super far in the realms of LD/CX is probably going to lose me. This is especially true since I haven't read much K lit (Have read some Wilderson, some Baudrillard) so if things aren't explained you probably aren't going to get the result you want. You've been warned.

-Theory: In short I default to reasonability, no rvi, drop the debater

Winning only defense on a shell doesn't constitute rvi

Winning turns on the shell without a CI constitutes a vote on the original interp in the round

Special Note on disclosure theory since it's become somewhat controversial: I personally feel that disclosure makes the debate space better so if you want run disclosure theory, you've got a green light from me. If you want to have a discussion about why disclosure is good or bad, I'd be happy to sit down and have that discussion with you.

-T: Generally follow the same reasoning as theory (posted above). However, note that my threshold for T is higher than it is for theory. If you try to run some crazy policy type extra-t stuff I'm just going to be lost. Reading multiple t shells is ok but make sure you can name advocacies that grant ground.

T Defaults: Competing Interps, No RVI, Drop the Arg, T before Theory

-For roadmaps I'm fine with "x off" as long as you're signposting and tagging each off at the top

-If you plan on reading at a pace much faster than traditional pf please email me speech docs. If not you run the risk of me missing something so that's on you. Please slow down on plan texts, alts, interps, and standard tags. Thanks :)

Spreading and the likes of it:

-If you think your opponents are spreading you out of the round, feel free to slow/clear while they're speaking. I think that in order to have the most functional and fair debate, both sides should have the right to understand what the other team is saying and what their arguments are. Try to keep it reasonable from both ends. If you yell clear when it is very obvious to me that there isn't a need to, you're losing .5 speaks.

-Don't know why people do wpm counts, I don't get the point. I'll clear you if needed. If you think you're running too close to a dangerous boundary you probably are. Email chains/flash to everyone in round is appreciated.


-TLDR: My range is generally 27-29. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job.

Stats for your own reference:

2018-2019 VPF Year Average: ~28.5 (220 total speakers)

-Just because I judged for a policy school does not mean because I can follow spreading because I can't. I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. Too many clears in a row will also lead to speaker point loss

-I personally believe that speaker points should be reflective of both how strategic you are and how well you handle the arguments in the round. Engaging with links, warrants, and similar depth type debate that creates a really good round is the easiest way to get higher speaks. That being said, there are other things that you still have to do. (I.e. responding to opponent's arguments/not extending through ink, collapsing, etc.) Expect average speaks to be around 28.

-General Penalties (This is just a condensed list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) taking too long pull up evidence (.5 for every extra 30s after 1:30), teams who disclose are protected.

3) being non strategic (depends on how hard I think you butcher it, includes no weighing/going for everything)

4) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

5) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

6) Too much use of the frontline "Our evidence is very specific in saying ___" instead of engaging with the warranting behind argumentation.

7) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

8) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

9) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

10) Severe evidence misrep. (Trust me you prob. won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. When I say my non-bubble average is 28 I mean my average is a 28. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) Cutting at least one cross short when you have no questions left (+.2). Note that you cannot cut the entirety of grand cross for obvious reasons

4) Email chaining/flashing the AR/NR with properly cut evidence gets both partners a .5 speaker point bump

5) At any tournament , disclosure on the NDCA wiki gets you 1 speaker pt bonus. Yes you will get a full speaker point bump.

6) If you have an page on the PF Circuit Debater Wiki (found here) with uploaded prep from previous topics, you get a full 1pt speak bump. Circuit Debater is a great resource for all debaters and I'm encouraging you to use it. If you haven't looked at it you should definitely check it out.


I've changed how I explain this part pretty drastically from how it used to be but the ideas remain mostly the same.

- I do not call for evidence unless I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also tend to base my understanding of your ev based on how it was originally read.

- I would suggest reading cut cards in case and having cut cards for anything you read available. Disclosing is good practice and should be mandated, I'll give you a speaker point bonus. Sending speech docs of cards read in rebuttal is also good and you also get bonus speaks.

-If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm not calling for it because you're not getting the extension on my flow. You should know what your own evidence says and if you're trying to do some shady ev misrep that's a definitive no.

-Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

-"Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In round, a minute thirty to search, -0.5 speaks each 30s you go over, I drop it at 3 min. In the case I call for ev after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it".

o L20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it's a flat speaker point penalty for being unorganized and I drop the ev out of the round.

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

-I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

-No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging. Will get emails of at least one debater from each team so I can copy rfd from ballot onto an email for all of you.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of two people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round


LD/CX Paradigm

-If I had more PF teams competing here I wouldn't be judging LD/CX but since you're reading this we're going to have to find a way to make it work.

-If it makes it easier for you to do MJP:

o I never did any LD/CX in high school, just pf. Familiar with structures of CP's/K's/Theory,T and can probably evaluate it on a surface level. I can't follow spreading.

o 2018-2019 Season I judged about maybe 10-12 rounds of LD, 2 at some Dallas local (non bid, relatively small pool), Majority of prelims at UT

-I'm willing to evaluate any standard argument on an offense/defense paradigm and weighing is greatly appreciated (I don't want to have to intervene)

-I reserve the right to drop you for any offensive language

-When making extensions in later speeches, please extend the argument. I don't want just an author name

-I would prefer you to stay away from philosophy because I don't understand it very well.

-For more progressive stuff: As long I think you are doing a good job of engaging with the link story and clash on progressive args, I will reward you with 29-30 speaks hopefully to offer minimum compensation for my lack of ld qualification. If I feel that the debate is revolving around simple stock structure args that are present in every debate space, I will be more picky about speaks (you can reference the pf speaks section above).

-Standard Plan Aff's, DA's, CP's.: I have a general understanding of how these arguments work but if you're doing anything super technical you probably will have to explain it. I don't know what the norms in LD are but please do not read multiple conditional counterplans. Floating pics are not ok either.

-Theory/T: Theory/T comes before case and the default is reasonability no rvi. I had a fair understanding of how these worked in PF but I don't know the norms in LD and you'll have to do explanation and/or analysis on what constitutes abuse for theory. I think I would be lead to believe T more than theory.

-K's: I don't have a great understanding of K debate. I get the link/impact/alt but don't know much about "clash" on k. I haven't read any of the standard LD k evidence so don't expect me to know a lot. I'll try my best to evaluate K but don't expect too much.

-Completely unfamiliar with evaluating >2 Layers so T before K type arguments (or vice versa), meta theory, etc. will require explanation

-If you're reading 3 or more of the same type of off (DA, theory, t, etc.) I need a more specific roadmap. If you are reading any off that is a technical part of ld I will probably need specific explanation.

Speed: If you re planning to spread this is probably where I'm going to have the hardest time following you given my background. Please email me speech docs beforehand and I will clear you if I need to.

Joshua Long Paradigm

8 rounds

Although PF should be an evidence based debate, it must have a thorough explanation and interpretation of the card. I have competed in Public Forum for 3 years so I am experienced in debate. However, imagine if I were a lay judge.

Renee McDowell Paradigm


I graduated from UTA with a major in Political Science and a minor in economics. I graduated from SMU with an EMBA (Executive Master of Business Administration).


I tend to follow economic arguments pretty well. With that said, if you run it wrong or you don't fully understand it, I'll be able to tell. I won't automatically vote you down though, both sides should agree on how specific arguments like that functions and I'll vote based on the agreed upon function.

Things to Keep in Mind:

- I tend to favor longterm impacts over short-term impacts, so I would suggest doing some weighing on timeframe throughout the round.

- Crossfire is a 3 minute period to ask questions. I heard your constructive speech the first time, I don't need to hear it again. And if you spend 45 seconds just avoiding the question because you don't want to answer, I will doc your speaks

- Don't go crazy on the voters. I don't need 30 reasons why I should vote for you. Just keep it short and weigh both sides

- I haven't been judging long enough to follow spreading. Not to mention, it's PF, you shouldn't be talking fast anyway.

- Weighing is very important. I won't do any work for you, tell me why you won.

Dawn Paciotti Paradigm

8 rounds

Speaking fast does not make you a better debater. I can tolerate a clipped conversational pace. If you are double breathing and blurring words together, I will say clear. If you are in an outround and the other two judges are okay with speed, you may be tempted to go faster. It's certainly your choice, but if I don't understand your arguments, I'm not going to vote on them. I have a higher tolerance for speed in the 1AR. Speeding through cases will just annoy me.

In terms of argumentation, I am open to anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon you will want to explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead.

Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. If you disregard my preferences on speed, that's another route to lower speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

Robert Perry Paradigm

8 rounds

I tend to view myself as conservative and traditional judge. When judging LD I taught this for twenty years and I tend to focus on intent of resolution and the burdens of each speaker. I don't favor critiques nor do I want the negative to present a counter plan. When judging Policy I do not just pay attention to stock issues, I also think that I occasionally view a round through the eyes of a policy maker. I truly enjoy teams that are organized and can articulate clearly the impacts of evidence and connect the evidence appropriately to their position. If you claim a comparative advantage, then be prepared to support it with evidence that actually links clearly back to a specific piece of evidence your opponent used. I do not mind voting on topicality, however the wording of the resolution is flexible and your analysis of terminology and application within the round can make even a topical case susceptible to a no vote if you neglect to properly articulate why you are significant or substantial with adequate evidence or proof. I prefer to hear arguments proving the disadvantages or why a counter-plan can solves and I don’t think that everything leads to total destruction. I am not overly fond of kritik’s but I will listen and I have voted on them when they are well presented and supported by evidence and understood by both team members. I flow fairly well but, if you use speed you must have clarity of speech. I think the spread is not really necessary if your research and understanding of the resolution is sufficient.

Teju Sitaram Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zubair Sukhyani Paradigm

8 rounds

I'm cool with everything

email chain:

Art Tay Paradigm

8 rounds

Plano West '18 | SMU '22

I debated PF for four years. I did okay. I consider myself a fairly technical judge.

TL;DR: If you want my ballot, give me a clear link story from the resolution all the way to the RFD. I'm lazy so write my RFD for me. I won't be offended if you say "your RDF should be". Impact contextualization is really important for me. Tell me why I should care about what you've just said.


Absent explicit framing I will default to a cost benefit analysis.

If there is no offense I fell comfortable voting for at the end of the round I will presume the first speaking team. This is because I believe that in PF the second speaking team has an inherent advantage because of the way that speeches are structured.

The second rebuttal must frontline turns made in the first. If the first speaking team duh goofs and doesn't extend the turn, I guess you lucked out. The other way out of this hole is cross-applying something you did extend, or weighing.

The second rebuttal should frontline terminal defense. If a piece of terminal defense is unresponded to out of the second rebuttal and the first summary extends it, I will have a high threshold to grant the second summary new answers. Conceding defense will also increase my threshold for risk of offense claims in later speeches.

Unextended turns in the summary can be extended in the final focus as terminal defense.

I don't need complete parallelism, but I won't vote on something that isn't in both the summary and final focus.

Unresponded defensive sticks, although I would advise the second summary to extend defense against arguments extended in the first summary.

I probably won't listen to cross, so if something important happens bring it up in speech.

Extensions must include a warrant and an impact.

I like big picture and narrative stuff because I'm too lazy to go through and evaluate the line by line unless your arguments spark my interest.


I won't vote you down if I think you were unstrategic, but I might lower your speaks.

Collapsing and weighing is a must. The sooner the better.

If you go for too much I will be sad.

I will give high speaker points for good implication, spin, and evidence comparison.

Progressive Arguments

I didn't do CX or LD, but I understand how Plans, CP, DA's, and K's work.

I don't mind voting for these kinds of arguments, but I won't vote on novelty.

I will evaluate them as normal PF arguments, and they should be restructured in such a fashion.

If I think you are just reading down a backfile I won't vote on it (don't be lazy, do your own prep).

If you label DA's as turns I'll be sad, then you'll be sad when you see your speaks.


I love a good theory debate. I think that there are some pretty bad norms in PF and I think theory might help fix them.

Defaults: Theory comes before case (this includes k's), reasonability, no RVI's.

Condo - If you drop an advocacy a turn is still a turn. I will vote on Condo arguments about reading de-link to the case to get out of turns.

Paraphrasing - I think this is a great one, especially because it's PF specific.

Disclosure - ehhh, I'd vote on it if it's debated well.

NIB's - NIB's bad theory is something I am inclined to buy. I think in PF it is truly abuse, especially in the second rebuttal.

I view T very similar to the way I view theory. Don't run a non-topic case if you don't believe in it.


I don't like waiting, so if you take too long to find evidence I'll dock speaks.

If you don't read dates I'll be sad 😞.

I'll call for evidence when:

1) I feel that it is being misrepresented.

2) I am told to call for it or it is heavily contested.

3) Competing evidence on important offense and I am not presented with a way to prefer one piece of evidence over the other.

4) I'm interested 😏

I don’t auto drop debaters on evidence abuse. Small faults, such as minor late speech powertagging, that preserve the integrity of the card can result in no to minor consequences. More severe abuses can lead to me just dropping the argument.

Paraphrasing is ok AS LONG AS you're not misrepresenting evidence


I'm generally nice with speaks 30-28.

I prefer faster debates as long as you signpost well and speak clearly. Slow down on tags and authors.

If I miss something that's on you buddy.

*For Plano West Tournament*

Speaks will be given on the Jerry Scale.

*For LD*

I never did LD, but since you might have me as you're judge here is so information about me.


I have read parts of Wilderson, and some of the Cap stuff, but I have a very basic knowledge of how K debate works. Anything overly technical or based on LD norms will have to be explained to me.

Policy Stuff

People have told me that PF is like the case debate in policy, so I think I should be fine dealing with Policy Affs, DA's, and CP. I understand how stock issues work, but again anything super technical or based on LD norms will have to be explained.


Defaults: Theory comes before case (this includes k's), reasonability, no RVI's.

You will probably have to do a lot of analysis on the theory debate for me to vote on it. I don't really have an idea of what is abusive in LD since I'm unfamiliar with the speech times, and unaware of norms.

I have a better understanding of T debate in LD than theory. T arguments that seem compelling to me are good a case list, and TVA solves.


I am not trained to follow spreading, but I will try my best. I will say clear if you're going to fast. If you are going to spread please email the speech doc to If you're clear on analytics and tags I'm okay if you spread the card so long as you email me the evidence.

Ria Varma Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Skyler Walker Paradigm

Background: I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years. I did two years of policy, two years of LD and 3 years of parli.

For my general paradigm, I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). I don't think it's my job to tell you that you can or cannot run certain arguments. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be I will default to policymaker. Speed is okay with me as long as you aren't sacrificing clarity. If I can't understand you I will stop flowing. Please keep your own time. As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework,a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. Additionally, if you are running a K, I would prefer that you only have one advocacy. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well fleshed out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Theory/Topicality: My threshold for theory is pretty high. With that being said, I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win (hint: don't just say "that's abusive").

Counterplans/Disads: I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the case. In LD if you're going to run one, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you can, considering most of the time, there isn't a plan to begin with. Disads should be structured well.

Framework: I look to fw before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory obviously, specifically in LD. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

Jason Zhang Paradigm

8 rounds

I graduated from Plano West in 2018. I competed in PF for four years.


Tech over truth, but treat me like I'm a lay judge. I don't like teams that just card dump on their opponents hoping to win the round on sheer quantity of arguments alone. If you collapse on a good argument and warrant it well, I'm much more compelled to vote for you over a team that just spoke quickly.


I prefer line by line rebuttals at the very least. If you choose to go with an unconventional order, then please signpost! If I can't follow you, I'll be very sad.


Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defense, but definitely offense - this means turns. I think it's extremely abusive to not respond to a turn that was placed on you in first rebuttal until second summary. If you choose not to respond to turns in your rebuttal, it doesn't mean it's an instant vote down, but your chances of winning the round are slim :((. Defense in first summary sticks unless the other team unstuck it in second rebuttal.


Some kind of framing at some point in the round is definitely preferred because it'll help me decide what to evaluate better. That being said, if no explicit framework is agreed upon, I'll default to a cost-benefit analysis. This may or may not be good for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


If no one has a question please just sit down and cut crossfire short. No one wants to be there longer than we have to. If no one has a question, end it early and I'll give everyone .5 higher speaks. If something important comes up in crossfire, bring it up in a speech if you want it to have weight.


Please weigh your arguments in any way you choose. I'll try not to intervene but I'll be forced to if no one weighs and there's offense on both sides. You also have to weigh your weighing, i.e, tell me why your weighing mechanisms are better than your opponents.


I don't mind calling for evidence after the round if a team tells me to, or if I think you're lying about your evidence. If you can't produce a piece of evidence, then I'll drop the evidence from the round. You argument can still win if you warrant it well without the evidence though. Also, when I read the evidence, I will read the ENTIRE piece of evidence, not just the part that you cite.


I prefer a big picture summary and voter final focus. If you choose to go line by line, you best collapse boy.

I won't vote on anything if it's not in both of these speeches. Parallelism is good!


I can flow pretty well, but don't spread. If you speak at sanic levels I might miss the argument. If I'm just staring at you and not flowing, it probably means you're speaking at sanic levels.


Generally 28-30 unless you say something blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Progressive Debate

I'll evaluate them the same as any other normal argument, but if you go too far into the technicalities, you might lose me.

If you have any questions before the round, feel free to ask me! If you have any questions after the round, feel free to find me! Have fun!

aashna bharwani Paradigm

8 rounds

My judging philosophy is fairly traditional as I don’t judge CX. PF is about evidence and demonstrating why your argument is smarter and better than your opponent’s. It’s all about the final focus for me and how you access the arguments you have been making in the debate. In terms of non-traditional arguments i.e. projects, poems, rap, music etc— I think this is unnecessary but if you do run it make sure you emphasize how it links to and is relevant to the topic.

I don’t care for “T.” Overall, keep the big picture in mind. Spending your time tipping through a “T” violation doesn’t help me as the judge at all.

Being a traditional debater and now judge, I don’t care for Kritiks/Critiques since this I am not judging CX. Obviously, if you run a K, I will examine it but as the debater you need to weigh the arguments out for me.

As for style, I don’t prefer spreading but if you do and are unclear, I will tell you to be more clear.

Keep the round fun, just remember to extend your arguments and make flowing easy for the judge.

zane rashdan Paradigm

8 rounds

My judging philosophy is fairly traditional as I don’t judge CX. PF is about evidence and demonstrating why your argument is smarter and better than your opponent’s. It’s all about the final focus for me and how you access the arguments you have been making in the debate. In terms of non-traditional arguments i.e. projects, poems, rap, music etc— I think this is unnecessary but if you do run it make sure you emphasize how it links to and is relevant to the topic.

I don’t care for “T.” Overall, keep the big picture in mind. Spending your time tipping through a “T” violation doesn’t help me as the judge at all.

Being a traditional debater and now judge, I don’t care for Kritiks/Critiques since this I am not judging CX. Obviously, if you run a K, I will examine it but as the debater you need to weigh the arguments out for me.

As for style, I don’t prefer spreading but if you do and are unclear, I will tell you to be more clear.

Keep the round fun, just remember to extend your arguments and make flowing easy for the judge.