Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational
2019 — Colleyville, TX/US
Kristi Braley Paradigm
I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it. I like to hear authors' credentials the first time it's presented (per TFA rules of evidence) and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round. Weigh impacts and pull through framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater from a traditional circuit and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.
Nisha Elete Paradigm
Cat Gross Paradigm
Ali Hajibeiji Paradigm
I have background in CX, PF, LD, and Congress.
I do not mind spreading as long as articulation and clarity are not sacrificed. I don't mind jokes or humor, but nothing that withdraws from the overall stratus of the debate. I primarily vote off of who I believe has convinced me the most, or who has the strongest arguments.
Answering framework in LD is very important to me. I am okay with you conceding framework as long as a framework has still been answered. Well-written and clearly researched topics would give me more reason to vote for you. I do pay attention to all form of logistics, but I prefer you to not throw random numbers without a.strategy, or b.evidence/warrant. The more specific the source, and more official, the better it sits with me and being persuaded.
Overall I am very happy to hear your arguments and your debates. Jokes and humor always sit well and always stay calm. I am nothing more than a senior in varsity debate. Good luck!
*Meme cases are also fun.
Yabin Hu Paradigm
Yongkang Ma Paradigm
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.
Ramakrishna Nadella Paradigm
Anisha Navendra Paradigm
Hey!! I did PF for four years @ Colleyville on the Texas & national circuits.
**Tech>truth unless something is oppressive. However, the more ludicrous an argument is, the more work you’re going to have to put in to get my ballot.
**Since I’m no longer debating/researching the topics, please explain topic-specific jargon to me (ex: fonops w/UNCLOS, or evergreening patents w/Pharma). If I don’t understand something, it’ll be difficult for me to vote on it!!
**While I’m fine with you going tech on the flow, I’ve never learned how to properly evaluate progressive arguments (theory, k’s, etc.) Don’t run theory or a K just to confuse your opponents/beat inexperienced teams. I wouldn’t recommend reading a progressive argument in front of me, but if it’s imperative to read one, explain it to me like a regular argument & flesh it out in a simplistic way.
**Defense sticks in 1st summary unless frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.
**I prefer line by line summary > big picture summary
**If you want to be safe just treat me like a flay judge. (in the sense that I will evaluate the flow, but I think that establishing/extending a narrative throughout the round is also very important)
Warrant your arguments! I prefer a well warranted & logical argument to an unwarranted one corroborated by a sketchy piece of evidence. (warrants>>>>)
Extend arguments and not just author names! Don’t just say “extend the NYT evidence” without actually extending what the NYT evidence says.
Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh! Please do comparative, round specific weighing - it will make my life so much easier. If you don’t weigh, then you leave me to intervene & one team is going to think they got screwed over.
Meta weigh!!!! If one team is trying to outweigh on probability & the other is outweighing on magnitude, explain to me why I should look to probability weighing over magnitude weighing or vice versa.
Evidence Comparison! If your opponents have evidence with polar opposite claims, explain why your evidence is better in the context of the round instead of simply reiterating your evidence.
- Collapse! Don’t go for everything in summary and final focus. Even though summaries are 3 minutes now, still collapse on a few arguments. (quality>quantity)
Mirror! If you don't extend links, warrants, impacts, and weighing in both summary and final focus, I WILL NOT VOTE OFF OF THE ARGUMENT. (the extensions should not be blippy) New in the 2 is not the move :// but the only time I will evaluate new weighing in FF is if there has been no prior weighing throughout the round
Frontline turns/offense in 2nd rebuttal! 2nd summary is too late to start responding to offense that was placed in 1st rebuttal.
Be rude! Please be respectful of your opponents & please don’t let crossfires escalate into a shouting match.
Miscut evidence! Depending on how severely miscut a card is, I may drop you or dock speaks. I’ll call for evidence after the round if a team tells me to call for it, if it seems too good to be true, or if both teams have directly conflicting evidence & neither team did evidence comparison.
Just card dump! Obviously it's good to reference lots of cards, but be sure to add in extra analysis & weighing that specifically interacts with the arguments made in the round. Remember: fewer, & more fleshed out arguments are usually easier to vote on than lots of blippy ones.
- Spread! I’m cool with a fast pace as long as you're clear, but I won’t be able to adequately flow/process spreading. (don’t sacrifice clarity for speed)
Shake my hand! Germs suck.
****I definitely appreciate humor in rounds & will be prone to increasing your speaks if you make me laugh. However, if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will tank speaks & be wayy more inclined to drop you!
Just be a nice person & have fun. :))
rohit Panjwnai Paradigm
Edward Romo Paradigm
Cynthia Shi Paradigm
Scott Shuda Paradigm
I am a parent judge. While in high-school, I participated on the national-level in C-X and Congress-style events. Because I learned some bad habits from C-X debate, habits that that sometimes hurt my ability to be a persuasive speaker as an adult, I have a bias for speakers and teams that engage their audience, make clear, reasonable and well-considered arguments and are not rude to their opponents.
Other than that, I won't impose any paradigms on you -- it's your debate not mine. Tell me what you think are the important considerations in the round, why your side of the argument is the better, and how you did a better job of engaging and controlling the flow.