Tournament of Champions
2019 — Lexington, KY/US
Sonia Abut Paradigm
Benny Aerath Paradigm
Brian Alford Paradigm
PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan a plan or theory, do not expect to win. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain everything. Weigh impacts to get my ballot.
LD - I prefer traditional LD rounds.
Hector Alvero Paradigm
Shawn Aycock Paradigm
General Interp Paradigm
I value creativity including very unique informative topics. I enjoy blocking; however, only if it is clear. I also hate obscene movements that don't add to the overall build of the performance. I love realistic characters and absolutely don't enjoy cartoony characters(Unless it applies to the piece). I also feel that the performance should connect to the audience. Lastly, no matter your background in competitive success (Even if you are a national champion) I rank to what your current in round performance shows me.
Ayumi Barry Paradigm
Talk at a pace understandable to the average human being. Be clear concise. I take notes. I am going to be voting for the team/person with the strongest, clearest and the best defended. NO SPREADING.
Victoria Beard Paradigm
In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are parmount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.
Linda Berger-Bean Paradigm
Anita Boyd Paradigm
Cathy Brown Paradigm
Br. Anthony Cavet Paradigm
Elena Cecil Paradigm
Katy Cecil Paradigm
Becky Chabot Paradigm
Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. comments and/or arguments and/or behavior are not tolerated. If you choose to ignore this warning, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. Don't do it. The debate/speech space must be open and safe for all.
My judging philosophy:
This activity is about students, first and foremost. That means I am not the most important person in the round. I focus on which team is making the better argument for their position. I provide written feedback and while I will give an oral RFD at the conclusion of a round (when allowed), I like to provide feedback in writing so that it is of the most use for the student and their coaches. Whether it's in speech or debate, I believe in telling students what they did well and then offering some opportunities for improved performance in the future.
I have eight years combined speech and debate coaching and judging experience. I have judged every format of debate and every speech category. At present, I am coaching Congress and circuit LD, but prior to that, I coached policy debate. I primarily coach interp categories in speech, but I have experience coaching all categories and regularly judge speech on both the local and circuits.
General note for both speech and debate: how you behave in a round matters. I expect you to be cordial and collegial to your opponents. If you are not, your speaker points will reflect it.
Here’s the TL;DR version:
Clash is necessary. I love Ks and critical argumentation (but know your theory because I’ll know if you don’t). Give me the ballot in your rebuttals
In a round, I'm paying close attention to whether arguments are complete and if they're well supported by the cards used. It's not just about cramming as much as will fit into an X-minute speech; it's about making sure that your evidence says what you're saying it does and using information to make your argument stronger. I'm looking for claims, warrants, and impacts.
I'm not a strict flow judge, but I am tracking all the arguments. If questions are raised in rounds that are a priori to the resolution, I'm paying special attention to how they're run and responded to; T and K are voters that, for me, always take precedence over case.
Clash is important! Rounds where the sides talk past each other and don’t engage with the arguments of the other side are not good rounds
Tell me why you should get the ballot in your rebuttals. Make your case for why you win the round. But please do not tell me that I have an ethical obligation to vote a certain way, unless you're giving me the ethical paradigm from which you want me to vote. Otherwise, the phrase "you have an ethical obligation to vote for us" means nothing. Ethics and morals are not the same thing, so please don't conflate them. Morals are an appeal to shared values, while an ethic is simply a way of being in the world. Knowing how to make these arguments successfully will make you better debaters.
While I was an old school policy debater, my doctoral studies have been in continental philosophy, cultural theory, and social ethics. Bring on your critical arguments! I love critical argumentation in both LD and Policy when it's done well. I expect students to understand the theory that underlies their critical arguments, as that is the only way to successfully defend arguments of that kind. Again, know the theory and the methodology of the argument you're making; if you don't, it will hurt you in the round. My decisions in many rounds come down to a priori questions to the resolution, especially Ks.
Speed, in and of itself, is not a problem; speed without clarity is. If I can't understand you, I will say “Clear” once. Slow down and enunciate. If I still cannot understand you, it's an issue that will impact speaker points. Please slow on your tags and citations.
Each speech should have proper argumentation (claim, warrant, impact(s)). IMPACT OUT YOUR EVIDENCE!!! You should know why the evidence you’re reading or the statistic you’re citing matter! Road map your speeches. Signpost during them. If you are not the first speaker on either side of a bill, make it clear that you're following what's come before you. Acknowledge your fellow representatives when you're building on their point or when you're refuting it. CLASH IS IMPORTANT! I rank POs, with the exception being if the chamber is poorly run. Precedency and recency matter. I track the number of questions you ask in addition to scoring your speeches. The person who gets my top rank is the person who performed best in the round. I'm looking for cordiality and collegiality, strength and uniqueness of arguments, and excellent in-round engagement with the thoughts and arguments of others. Generally speaking, I judge 50/50 content/performance; both what you say and how you say it matter
While I am first and foremost an interp coach and judge, I’ve coached and judged every NSDA category and am comfortable with them all. There are a couple big things that I’m looking for when I judge a speech round.
1) Performance: Can I hear you? Do your movements make sense? Are you comfortable with the material? Do you wait for the judge before beginning? Does entire performance fit with the material? How well do you perform or present your piece? Are you off book? Do you speak with confidence and authority?
2) Category specific things: For interp generally, I pay close attention to transitions, pops, and character work. Are they clean? Are they distinct physically and vocally? Getting those to a point where they’re clean is a huge hurdle, but one that
In humor, do the jokes land? Are they told well? Does the performance include pauses after jokes that elicit a laugh? Do you know what your laugh lines are? Is the piece funny?
In POI, I’m looking for a cohesive piece that has a storyline throughout it. Do the piece selections fit with each other? Is each piece identifiable? In other words, can I tell when you’re popping between pieces? Does the theme carry through? Have the cuttings been done well?
In Info, OO, and other student-written categories, does the text make sense? How well written is the piece? Does it succeed in being interesting and engaging? In an OO round, is the speech an OO or is it an informative? And in an info round, is it an informative speech or is it an OO?
For extemp, I want to see both an understanding of the prompt and an understanding of the arguments advanced. Are arguments complete or are they missing a piece? Does the argument have ground?
3) Category requirements: do the piece and its performance adhere to the NSDA rules or the operative rules for a tournament? If you’re not sure what they are, you can find that information on the NSDA website.
4) Respect and collegiality: do you treat everyone with respect? Are you on your phone or engaged in watching your peers? Put simply: don’t be a jerk. No one likes a jerk.
Make my ranking decisions hard for me. The best rounds are the ones where I have a hard time figuring out how to rank you.
Lisa Chancellor Paradigm
Von Christiansen Paradigm
I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win debate rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.
This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.
The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. as far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.
I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:
(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;
(2) Look me in the eye;
(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;
(4) Make me laugh;
(5) Make me cry;
(6) Make me care;
(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;
(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;
(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,
(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.
I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!
Courtney Coffman Paradigm
General Update: I haven't judged a lot of circuit LD rounds this year. I've been judging a lot of World Schools Debate. Please don't go your top speed and please slow down on tags & author names.
Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. I graduated in 2008 after debating for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NFL/NSDA, TFA). I was a "traditional" debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at Global Debate Symposium, Mean Green Workshops and Pinnacle.
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round.
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)
Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.
Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. You can consider me a 7 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I think permissibility and skep. arguments are defense and don't prefer to see them in a round. I default to comparative worlds.
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad when making a decision (aka don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc). I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence "argument" that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!
Jacki Collins Paradigm
Regan Copple Paradigm
I did LD for a year in high school, but I am highly experienced in extemp speaking (4 years in high school and 3 years in college). I've also coached worlds for 2 years now off-and-on and I also know how to judge PF as well. I'm far more experienced with more technical forms of debate but I have judged WSD at NSDA before (but it was middle school, be warned).
In terms of what I look for in speakers, I look for who commands the room the best and who has the most solid logic in their arguments. If your arguments don't make sense then I often find them hard to weigh at the end of the round.
If you have any specific questions about what I think of something, ask me before the round. I won't get mad if you ask me questions and I can clarify anything you're wondering about.
Jake Cosio Paradigm
School Affiliation: Coach at Lovejoy High School
Debate Experience: Coaching and judging LD and CX since 2013, PF since 2016
On CX and LD:
Speed - I don’t mind speed. Please clearly signal that you are transitioning from cards to tags. Slow down for your tags (especially if they are super long) and cites. If you could number or in some way signal me on analytics to help me get my flow to match yours it would be much appreciated. In summation, the more explicit you are with organization the better I will be able to flow. Additionally, I will say “clear” if your words are slurred or say “slow down” if you are simply outpacing my ability to flow accurately.
Theory - I like theory when it is necessary, but dislike the use of blippy theory. If you have any theory (or any other format of arg) that says using specific words is bad, just tell everyone before the round what is preferable. If they bait it after that then I’m all ears, but will have a really high threshold on this otherwise (as in you will have to prove to me why it wasn’t important enough to disclose before the round but is important enough for me to vote on). On other issues, I’m really looking for good internal links to your voting issues. Absent debate, I tend to prefer single actor CP’s to multi-actor and dispositionality to condo.
Topicality - I default to competing interpretations. In round abuse is preferable, but I will listen to potential abuse if well developed and defined. Make sure to clearly link and establish your impact(s) to your standards. I am generally not inclined to vote on T as an RVI.
Kritiks - Being completely honest, I am not the best at evaluating K debate. I prefer strategies going for a mix of DA/CP/T/Case and am much more comfortable evaluating these. I would say you're running the K at your own risk. If you are a K debater, that’s fine, but please take the time to explain your K to me without assuming that I have read your authors and/or have intimate knowledge of their content. To be clear, speak in plain English when explaining everything (even your tags).
Speaks - I generally reward organization, clarity, and efficiency. In essence, the easier you make it for me to flow (without boring me to death) the better your speaks will be. On the other hand, I penalize rudeness and unprofessionalism. I expect a fairly high level of decorum (stand while speaking, don’t use offensive/vulgar language, etc.).
On CX specifically:
To categorize myself neatly in some distinct category isn’t fair for anyone, but the closest approximation that I can make is to place me on the policy maker side of tab with a few caveats (as outlined above).
In cross-examination I have a preference for the speakers traditionally assigned to a certain cross-x to be the people that are active during this time. If your partner is answering a significant portion of the questions asked of you, you will be penalized in speaker points. One or two questions isn’t a big deal to me, but 50+ percent of them would see a small penalty.
On LD specifically:
Keep in mind that I am not necessarily expecting (or even wanting) you to run policy args. A good framework with well established advantages of affirming/negating is a completely acceptable strategy to me.
Speed - a fast conversational seems best suited to PF for me. I will probably penalize speaks for anything excessively fast.
Format of Summary Speeches - I would prefer a line by line, but if grouping is necessary for efficiency I am ok with it.
Role of the Final Focus - Weighing and voters
Topicality - Run it if it is necessary, but I am most likely just going to default to reasonability and gut check it before anything else on the flow.
Plans - I think all offense should be linked directly to the resolution, but you can characterize how the resolution would be implemented. In the instance of Con speaking first, I will not allow the Pro to no link all of the Con offense simply because they present a plan.
Kritiks - I'm really bad at them. Probably not a good idea (see above).
Flowing/note-taking - I will judge based on my flow.
Argument vs style - my ballot will be based on the arguments. Style will not weigh in much to my decision (as long as style does not interfere with my ability to understand you).
A few questions you may want answers to:
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, it should be extended.
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? It is not required, but is not discouraged either.
Do I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No
Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you can be reasonably specific.
Laura Cristiano Paradigm
Michael Cruz Paradigm
Tiffany Dacheux Paradigm
Forensics Team coach for Dallastown since 2014
Speed and Decorum:
Send me your case. My email is email@example.com I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused, and generally just make me happier. (Please…and thank you!) If its an organized case, that’s just even better!
Spreading…I can follow it when I have the speech DOC, at least a skeletal outline (preferably written), or clear signposts which are different in emphasis/tone. Real talk time: this is key if you will be spreading in rebuttal.
I really do not care if you sit, stand, or perform yoga poses while you speak. I vaguely care that you remain in the room, and do not want you to touch me/your opponent but other than that pick your own position.
I don't time the debate or prep time, therefore you should. If need me to time, please tell me. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.
I’d rather not touch…well…ANYONE, so can we NOT shake hands?
Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)
I do not like theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.
You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.
Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!
Tricks = no. Thanks.
Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round.
Joele Denis Paradigm
Charles Donovan Paradigm
Megan Dorsey Paradigm
General Experience: I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in extemp and LD as a student and went to nationals in LD.
Extemp: You must answer the question. I will weigh both content and delivery when making my decision. Academic integrity is paramount, so I may check your sources.
L-D Debate: I am a somewhat old-fashioned L-D judge. I want to see persuasive communication and a clash on values and value criteria.
I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in LD as a student-- when dinosaurs roamed the earth and LD was value, not policy, debate.
What I want to see:
I like a mix of pragmatic and philosophical arguments. The winning debater will have a mix of persuasive speaking, logical arguments supported by either philosophy, empirical evidence or expert opinion, and the value which has been proven to be superior based on the criteria in the round. I don’t want to see evidence during or after the round. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a kritik.
I will flow. If you speak faster than I can flow, I will put my pen down and not record your arguments. Keep in mind, I value convincing delivery in making a decision, so don’t go for speed if you can’t do so clearly and persuasively. You should stand when you speak.
Your chance of winning the round drops dramatically if you:
- don’t allow fair ground for debate
- are rude to your opponent
- show me the back of your laptop instead of your face
- mis-use or mis-quote evidence (academic integrity is paramount!)
Jacob Dugger Paradigm
Brandon Fisher Paradigm
I've got quite a bit of experience in Public Forum, LD, and Policy Styles. I will understand your terminology for the most part, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/general expectations of all of the styles. I've been participating in speech and debate for 13 years, coaching for 6, and this is my second year in Texas. I tend to prefer the debate to go a bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of overall structure throughout speeches and the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, once case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give like 2-3 voters or big issues in FF. You can still address line by line in FF, but collapse and categorize.
I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.
Lastly, I will rarely ever vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaks. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:
1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your goal is to practice the art of knowing and preparing arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-8 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time.
PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.
2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF).
3. Debate is a presentational activity. In my opinion, spreading cards or cases is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read the shorter case so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for LD and Policy only. If you spread though slow down on tags, and always include a short analysis of cards and argumentation.
4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in LD and Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.
5. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have the most experience with traditional styles of debate. I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better.
Jeffery Flores Paradigm
Sarah Foster Paradigm
My paradigm is generally pretty simple. I will buy anything in round if you make me believe it. Show me the link chain. Tell me where I am going on the flow. I am comfortable with speed. If you provide framework please carry it through the whole round, this is paramount in LD for me.
I have been coaching for 7 years, and before that I was a competitor. I have judged/coached every style of debate.
Ask me questions in round if you need more specifics. I will vote on anything. :-)
JP Fugler Paradigm
Madi Gackenbach Paradigm
Head coach at Plano East Senior High.
In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.
-I do not like Kritiks; they are generic and lazy debating - I will not vote for them.
-On case attacks are important!
-Theory, CPs, PICs, RoB, DAs, are all good.
-Do not read at me while giving voters.
-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.
-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.
In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.
In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in CX/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in 25 speaks.
Include me in on email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
I look forward to hearing you speak!
Kimberley Gilles Paradigm
Casey Golden Paradigm
Saul Grullon Paradigm
Li Guan Paradigm
Yeshar Hadi Paradigm
Adrienne Hernandez Paradigm
Josie Higgins Paradigm
Amy Hinton Paradigm
Alyssa Hooks Paradigm
I debated for Barbers Hill HS for four years. In both LD and CX. Qualifying for TFA state my junior and Senior year. I now do IPDA- public debate- with The University of Arkansas at Monticello. Currently the coach for the Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart in Houston, Texas.
TLDR (1 = best):
General: I'm fairly open to seeing what you're most comfortable doing as long as it creates good debate. Many times I have seen rounds where it was like two ships passing in the night because someone read something so off the wall there was no way to respond to it, or maybe there is a way but no one knows it but you. That's not cool. I will yell slow, clear or loud. Sit, stand or float. I don't mind one way or another. I always stood, but because my coach didn't afford the option-- do what makes you happy!
Taken from Megan Nubel’s paradigm- “Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction, though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks."
You do you. I will yell slow or clear if need be. Please, though, for the love of debate, slow down for author names or tags at least. If you get an unnecessary amount of "clear" warnings, I'll probably deduct speaker points or stop flowing altogether. You need to be aware of your threshold of what is clear and what is not clear.
I've always been a Util debater but will listen to the best you have. Having done policy before, buying extinction impacts are more difficult for me (I say this because I had a judge say they were totally cool with it all, I read an extinction impact and then was told I read the one thing they wouldn't ever vote on), but I won't vote on it. You just need to make it very clear to me why it's such a big issue. Tip: the longer the chain the less buy-able the extinction impact is. If you want an easier way to my heart and my ballot, read short chains with more plausible impacts.
I fell in love with the K debate at the end of my junior year and tried to read them as much as possible in my senior year. While I wasn't necessarily a K debater all of high school, I've read plenty to know generally where you're probably going to be trying to go. But do not assume I know everything about your K. I don't appreciate backfile Ks just to have something to read-- I feel like that errs on the said of the bad debate. Taken from Cameron McConway's paradigm- " I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks, though."
Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well. I’ve had my butt kicked by too many good debaters with very good T/Theory strats to just be okay with you reading something and not doing something effective with it. If you read it to try to spread the aff out of the 1A, it's strategy, but I’m not a huge fan of kicking something like that. I was taught it was the top layer of debate, so I wouldn’t kick out of the top layer of debate. I will just you (get it because I have the ballot lol). I don’t want to feel like I should be defaulting to anything, but if I have to not only will I draw a sad face on the ballot but I’ll only to it to drop the argument and competing interps. I also believe it’s a very good strat when faced with these arguments, to go ahead and read RVIS. I will for sure evaluate them if you do it correctly.
I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates because that’s one thing I prided myself in doing fairly effectively. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I’m not proud to say, but I feel fairly underread in phil to be able to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I normally would.
I’ve never been a fan, but if it's what you do and you do it well enough for it to get my ballot then by all means. I wasn’t sure what else to say, so I did some searching and Cameron McConway put it perfectly. “ I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to scepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. [...] I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either; I think the function of arguments should be clear from the time they are read (not saying you cannot use something to take out another argument that it doesn’t appear to interact with- this is about contingent standards).”
Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:
-Racism, sexism or anything that is offensive to anyone
-Belittling someone in round-- also called ad hominems
-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable
-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.
-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one
Please always remember: debate is a safe space and should be treated as one
Things I appreciate:
-Assertiveness (there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive)
-Being true to yourself as an individual, a debater, and an advocate
I was once, told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” I do not believe this is true to an extent, I will give you a 30 if you deserve it. Speaks are about clarity, strategy, and ability to adapt to the room. If you’re a seasoned debater and you go five off on someone who got thrown into varsity, your speaker points may hurt a little, but not enough to hurt you from breaking if I feel like you deserve to break. I average a 27.5-28. If you get a 25 from me then you did something horribly egregious in round, and you should expect it to be on the ballot with some way for your coaching faculty to contact me to discuss it in depth, if they so, please. A 29 means that you did very well, but you made some easily fixable errors.
I hope you find yourself in debate to grow as a person. Be an advocate for something you care about, be true to yourself, and be comfortable saying the important things. Remember, it isn’t always about the ballot, but the message you bring in and out of the round.
A couple of times, I have had people ask if I would be okay with them trying out an unorthodox or new strategy in round. I, always, feel like there has to be a spot for it. I think that if you want to try something out and you want feedback beyond the ballot back, just let me know and I'll be sure to be super extensive and let you know. I want debate to be a learning experience before anything else.
Any other questions feel free to:
Email me: email@example.com__
Text me (713)314-6230
Or ask me before the round
Ian Hopkins Paradigm
Ryan Hubbard Paradigm
I evaluate based on flow. Stay topical and be respectful, but also provide clash. Jokes are appreciated.
Patrice Jean Baptiste Paradigm
William Johnson Paradigm
Sheridan Johnson Paradigm
Nathan Johnston Paradigm
firstname.lastname@example.org (Don't be shy. Any and all questions are welcome).
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative value of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.
The Paradigm Proper:
First, debate is meant to be a fun activity! With this being said, in round humor is definitely a plus! Debate rounds often tend to get real boring. I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. Ask questions. Whatever. I'm pretty easy going. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. As a result, my threshold for you being rude or offensive may be marginally lower than other peoples. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.
I do not walk into the room with a predetermined framework on how the round should be evaluated. The debaters in the room set the framework and I will judge the round as such. This is not my first rodeo in the activity. I've been around for over a decade. I am fine with speed, jargon, etc. I do not have any preferences as many judges say before the round but my ballots most times always reflect the arguments I'm most familiar with. I am familiar with both critical and policy types of arguments so regardless of whichever team you are I can always adapt efficiently.
1. Yes, open CX is fine (This applies to policy, of course.)
2. Prep stops when the drive leaves the computer or the email has been sent (this is specific to CX, for PF and LD just don't steal prep).
3. I don't really want to be flashed cases (too time consuming), but if there is an email chain I'd like to join.
4. I don't really pay attention during cross. That's your time to get clarification/concessions. If you want those things to matter then put them in speeches.
5. I'm not waiting for you to pre-flow. Do it before you get to the round (this also isn't an excuse to be late).
Interpretation of the Round:
My default interpretation of the round is within the lens of an policymaker, evaluating the affirmative plan versus the status quo or a competitive policy option. If there is an alternative framework, or a clash of two different frameworks I will evaluate the round based upon the winning framework. Each team should focus upon the warrants as to why their framework is favorable for the round; otherwise ‘winning the flow’ becomes difficult to assess. I believe that the affirmative should defend a stable advocacy whether or not they have an advocacy text and if they should be held accountable for not having one is up for debate. If there is a theoretical objection in the round I will evaluate as per a offense/defense paradigm. I will adapt to whatever is presented in the round as long as it is defended and explained (as long as it doesn't become offensive). My default method of risk calculus is always based upon an offense-defense paradigm, strictly on the flow and what was argued. I will not make extrapolations by myself, and will only assess what’s given to me. That being said, judge intervention is inevitable- however I will not allow for biases to intervene in my judgement All in all, there are other frameworks, and it is up to the debaters in the room to determine which framework I should prefer.
I love k debate. I'm familiar with the literature. I only ask that if it is something a bit out of the mainstream (though my version of mainstream includes a whole lot of stuff, so ask in round if you aren't sure if you're in it) or being used for its non-traditional purposes that you slow down on the taglines. I expect really good link analysis.
I'm cool with K affs, too. In fact, I enjoy them a lot. Though I do think that they should at least be in the direction of the topic.
Blippy theory arguments are not convincing, and a team must win explicitly that the other team should be rejected instead of their argument. I generally believe that conditionality can be easily defended. PICs and PIKs are in most part competitive. I need genuine in round abuse to pull the trigger on theory.
This is an essential tool to win. Hands down. Comparative analysis FTW The rebuttals should primarily focus on this, because it is the selling point of the debate. Also, for debaters favoring a “probability” style of debate, I believe that probability serves as an internal link to assessing the magnitude of a given impact.
Politics Disads are fine as long as you know what you’re talking about. I have seen politics disads debated very well, and very poorly. The more specific impact calculus the better. The negative should prove how their impacts intersect or outweigh the impacts of the affirmative in any type of DA. Specific warranted analysis on the case turn debate is a must. Case Defense is also a very important strategy in neutralizing the impacts of the affirmative. If the negative wins good ‘defensive’ arguments against the Affirmative’s advantages, it puts their DA impacts to a higher standard of evaluation in comparison to the Aff’s advantages. The same applies for the affirmative using “defensive” arguments against the DA.
Counterplans should be competitive. They must be a better policy option than the affirmative. I may be a little AFF biased when it comes to evaluating the CP against the AFF. For a Counterplan to be a legitimate use of fiat it must have a solvency advocate or else it'll be considered as a use of utopian fiat. To win the cp you must justify its use of fiat especially if the counterplan has several planks and is international or is some random agent within the USFG. Regardless, I think that the Counterplan ultimately has one use: To disprove that the Affirmative plan is necessary to solve for the problems presented in the 1AC. This is where Advantage Counterplans that solve for the internal link to the Aff advantages are highly respectable. The Aff should be ready for this by having specific Add-ons that the Advantage CP can’t capture.
I like T a lot, but I'm not a big fan of multiple blippy shells just to do it. I've generally found 1 or 2 is best. I think reasonability is probably pretty solid, but I can be convinced otherwise in any given round..
Debate in my opinion is a very strategic and educational game. You play to be competitive and to win. Go Big or Go home. I believe that there is some truth about the educational aspect of both policy and critical types of arguments; but in round it is up to the debaters to sell the argument to me and prove why they should get my ballot. Especially on the aff, the affirmative team has to write my ballot for me in the 2AR, specifically they must explain what my ballot means especially in the context of their movement. Is my ballot a representation of an instance of coalition building? like what is it!? Bottom Line, debate what you're most comfortable with, slightly adjust to my paradigm and you should be fine.
I don't mean to ignore you until the bottom. LD was my first love, and with the direction that LD has taken in the last decade or so, most of the above applies to you anyway. Just a couple extra bonus comments for you. 1) I think time skew is real. I think sometimes it sucks to be the aff. Which means I may be more receptive to theory arguments and AFC than many judges. I also think that it means you can justify an RVI a little easier to me. 2) If we are in a good ole value criterion debate, make sure that you're impacting everything through the framework really clearly for me.
Don't steal prep when asking for evidence (I wish we could just reach a point where you all would flash each other cases like other events). If you can't find a piece of evidence within a minute I'll have you start running your own prep to find evidence. This is pretty punitive but either PFers should start actually reading carded evidence instead of paraphrasing or you should have the cards accessible. This isn't this much of a problem in other events, it shouldn't be a problem in PF. 2nd Rebuttal: you probably should respond to offense or terminal defense put on your case by the first rebuttal. Yes, defense should be in first summary (especially now that you get an extra minute). You need to be doing some impact framing in summary and generally the majority of your final focus should be on impacts too. Give me an easy route to the ballot. If you just extend impacts/offense and don't put it into conversation with your opponent. I'm pretty progressive in other events, I'm not sure why that would stop in PF. So do whatever you want just make sure you're telling me to do with my ballot.
Cadi Kadlecek Paradigm
Steven Kalich Paradigm
Isaac Keller Paradigm
Imran Khan Paradigm
Julie King Paradigm
Kristofer Kracht Paradigm
Amy Kwalwasser Paradigm
Lee LaVanway Paradigm
Aaron Langerman Paradigm
I tend to err towards teams that do substantial and intelligent impact calculus that starts early in the debate, whether that's impact calc on a politics disad, the k, theory, topicality, or framework. Comparative analysis is perhaps the single most important part of debate, and teams that do it well will be rewarded. I think one of the most fantastic things about debate is the research. The best debates are always those that center around good case-specific research, and I enjoy them the most.
FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully make fun of the contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.
How to get high speaker points:
My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:
1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.
2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.
Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.
My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would still recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:
Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).
DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.
CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.
Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but don't assume I know what you're talking about. Take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lacks substance but just tries to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what they're saying.
Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.
If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.
Bo Lint Paradigm
Jill Lippincott Paradigm
Thomas Littler Paradigm
Hello! I have been a commercial litigator for 39 years and have tried numerous cases to judges and juries in addition to arguing thousands of motions.
I have been judging speech and debate competitions for six years.
I do not mind speed as long as there is clarity. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your arguments. I do like a road map to help me follow you.
I am fairly familiar with debate jargon, but not necessarily every specific term. I enjoy seeing clash in the debate, flowing your arguments all the way through, and weighing arguments. I want to see the impacts and links within your arguments.
I do not mind passionate debaters, but please be respectful toward your opponents.
I do not like and don't understand progressive arguments.
For Speech Events:
I enjoy creativity in content and expression in delivery. I like movement and vocal expression.
For performance events my rankings are based mostly on the quality of the performance but also on how well your speech presented a full story.
For extempt and impromptu, I have a greater emphasis on organization and content than on delivery.
Susan Lusher Paradigm
Martyn Mallick Paradigm
Dorri Mang Paradigm
Rachel Martin Paradigm
Julia Mauro Paradigm
Michael McCabe Paradigm
La Salle College: Head Coach of Policy Debate, 2012-2016, Head Coach of Speech and Debate, 2016-Present.
Email chain: email@example.com
TOC 2020 Update
12 years of judging policy, 5ish years of judging LD/PF
My general debate thoughts are the top-level followed by LD and policy specific paradigms.
General Debate Thoughts
Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all the cards
Conditionality good----X--------------------------Conditionality bad
States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing------------X-----------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing----X---------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact
Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk
Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs
Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read
- You should do what you do best and do it well – A good judge will not force their preconceived notions on debaters, but you should argue effectively. An effective argument has three parts: a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style. And I think I am a good judge in that I will allow the arguments to develop themselves, and take the responsibility of the judge being a educator seriously
- My flow will determine every debate I judge. There's one exception to that, I will not vote on any morally reprehensible argument. My standard for evaluating that: if your argument makes me uncomfortable as a high school educator, I will reject it. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument?
- Speed is fine, but clarity is important. Most debaters could slow down, get more arguments out, and increase judges comprehension.
- Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.
- Less is more. A smaller 1NC strategy with a lot of emphasis on the case is almost always better than 7 off. An affirmative with two advantages with a solid wall of internal links is my ideal 1AC.
- Be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges.
- I will generally write out my RFD's and will provide a copy of it in the online ballot. This shouldn't be a cause of concern if you think my RFD is taking a little longer than you think it should. As a coach, I think it is beneficial to see this from a judge - otherwise we are left to our students relatively biased version of events or what they believe they heard the judge say - so I like to provide that same respect for fellow coaches.
I have just started judging LD with some regularity and have some experience of judging circuit level LD. See above and below for my general debate thoughts - one thing to be specific, no tricks. I hate LD tricks.
I am probably the judge for you if you are a fan of either a) fiat and role playing or b) traditional formats of LD. If you are a debater who wants a policy judge, I would be someone you should consider prefing.
As a fairly flex judge who's judged a lot of T-USFG policy debates vs a K aff, I feel comfortable adjudicating these debates.
I am most certainly not the judge for you if you expect the round to be decided on a minor subpoint theory spike that someone conceded. Minor theory would not include well structured and warranted theory that is flushed out early in the debate. Condo, disclosure could be persuasive. If you don't flash theory analytics, I'm way less likely to be sympathetic in LD because of how late breaking these debates have been in my experience.
I won't disclose speaker points, I don't understand where this trend came from.
The general truth section at the top of the page was written as a top-level of my policy paradigm. If you've read this far, here's my argument specific defaults.
Framework: I think that debate is a competitive game and if I were to offer my preference - the affirmative should defend a topical plan - that's my preference, not an absolute. I think if you look back at my judging history, the amount of framework debates I've judged is rather high. I think you'll also see that framework hasn't resulted in a neg ballot more than about 50%. Last year I think I voted neg on framework more-I don't think it was a change in my views, I think it was the Surveillance topic being an example of negative state action.
For teams going for framework:
1. I am most persuaded about form of education arguments and dialogue/engagement, rather than fairness standards. That doesn't mean you should avoid procedural fairness claims. I particularly find procedural fairness claims against high theory affs that don't advocate for something.
2. You need to tailor your framework impacts to the aff at hand.
3. You need to be specific. What is the topical version of their specific aff, why is the law necessary for achieving justice (and particularly a form of justice that would resolve some of the 1AC impacts). Engagement with the case is necessary.
For teams answering framework:
1. What does your model of debate look like? What does voting aff mean? Sometimes this gets lost in the line by line. You should be winning some meta-claims.
2. Be explicit about the language of your impact turns and how that plays out by voting affirmative.
Topicality: I am sympathetic to reasonability, but will default to competing interpretations. Topicality is no different from other arguments. I want a clear picture of what your internpretion means for debate (I.E. why is your version of limits good, what does the other teams interpretation justify, what's a topical case list, etc.)
Dis-ads: I think that all four parts of a dis-ad are important, which is why I believe in assigning an (dis)advantage, no risk. I think that internal link uniqueness is not attacked enough by the affirmative.
Counterplans: Love a well researched case specific counterplan with a specific solvency advocate. Who doesn't though? For theory I probably default aff on consult, word pics, and process cps. Default neg on pics and advantage cps.
Kritiks: The more specific the alternative is, the better in my mind. The more specific the links are to the action of plan, the better.
Condo: 1 is good, 2 is probably good, 3 is pushing it. It's going to take some work to win on condo.
Paperless: Prep ends when the email is sent (exception, local tournaments that still use 5 minutes - prep ends when the doc is saved). I will ask to be included on email chains because it is just easier to call for evidence (and to determine clipping); however, for time’s sake I will not ask to be included for flashing.
Cheating: Any cheating will be punished immediately with a loss and zero speaker points for the offending team. Any accusations of cheating will be taken seriously--the round will end immediately.
Susan McGraw Paradigm
Rory McKenzie Paradigm
Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.
For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net
CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.
Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.
Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.
Steve Meadows Paradigm
Lisa Meyer Paradigm
Deb Miksa Paradigm
Andrew Monagle Paradigm
Update: Jan. 18, 2020
I’m a teacher from Toms River, NJ who teaches US1 and US2 Honors. I’ve been coached PF/LD Debate and extemp at Ridge HS for the last 9 years, but it's been probably two years since I've found myself in an LD pool. Please read this paradigm before the round for the best picture of what I’m like as a judge. This is far more detailed than the readers-digest version that I’ll give orally before the round if requested.
It's been a while since I've been in an LD judging pool. Needless to say, I'm out of practice.
Speed: Start out at a reasonable pace. I need to hear your voice and your cadence for a few seconds before the spreading starts. I'll call clear two or three times before I give up flowing. If you're reading a plan text/interp/role of the ballot, don't spread it. I want to hear all of it. If you're reading theory in front of me, good luck. I'll need you to go slow and hold my hand through it.
Argumentation: I'm most familiar with policy args and kritiks. That said, I'm open to whatever you want to put in front of me.
Theory should only be read in the case of actual in-round abuse. Theory for the sake of theory isn't fun for me to listen to. If you're going to run theory, you should read it at a slightly faster than conversational pace. I'm not familiar with the arguments, and often a lot of it goes over my head. I need the abuse story to be clear and concise to the point where I can explain it start-to-finish in an RFD. The more accessible a theory argument is, the easier a time I'll have evaluating it.
I have a super low threshold on responses on spikes at the end of a constructive. I tend to ignore arguments like time skew, if I'm being honest.
Don't feel like you have to go for every argument in the round. Be strategic in the issues you select. You're constructing a ballot story for me and if all I have are blippy arguments to vote on, I (and probably you) will not be particularly happy with the decision rendered. I prefer seeing thoughtful debate with depth on one or two issues in the round rather blippy, surface level arguments about everything.
Warrants are important, logical and otherwise. "That isn't true" isn't an argument...you need to tell me why something isn't true.
Ad Hominem attacks against a debater are unacceptable. I'm not going to vote for a debater who calls their opponent racist, sexist, ableist, etc without any justification.
Racist, sexist, abelist, etc. arguments are a no-go for me. Run at your own risk.
Speaker Points: I'll follow whatever standard the tournament sets. You'll probably notice that I'm a bit stingier with speaker points than other judges. That's not to say that I've never given a 30 before, but it's not a particularly frequent occasion.
Evidence: The evidence standard in LD (in my experience) is remarkably higher than it has been in PF rounds that I've judged...that said, I still feel the need to say it...Academic integrity is extremely important. Please be honest. Don't alter a card's meaning, don't intentionally misrepresent evidence. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent.
Speed/Speaking: I enjoy fast/circuit style debate. However, I will not flow if you spread. Spreading has no place in PF. I consistently reward good speakers who sound like they care about what they are talking about. When I evaluate a speaker I take into account a number of things: strategic decisions, coverage, efficiency, speaking style, persuasiveness, etc.
Points: 0-25 (or whatever the lowest base the tournament allows to give) are reserved for those who are offensive (more on that later). 25.5-26 is a debater who has a lot to work on, has serious flaws in arguments, couldn’t fill speech times, and most likely will not make it to elims. 26.5-27.5 is an average debater. May make it to elims, but still has noticible flaws in arg construction, lines of logic, and is not a great speaker. 28-29 will most likely break. Lines of logic are mostly solid and I was probably impressed by the case. Args may have flaws but they are minor. 30 is the ideal debater. Flawless argumentation, a stellar and strategic speaker.
Things that will lose you speaks: The thing I most frequently award 25 speaks for is for not citing evidence correctly. A few examples of this are additions or omissions of words (even the omission of a word like “might”), straw man arguments, literally making things up. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent. Debate is an academic activity. As such, academic integrity is important to me. If you feel that you cannot debate in front of me without unethically interpreting evidence, please strike me.
While it may not earn you a 25 outright, talking during your opponents speeches is extremely rude. Your opponents speeches are not prep time for you. If you need to communicate with your partner, write or type a note. Every time a debater decides to speak during their opponents speech, I’ll subtract a half point from them.
During CX, please treat your opponent with respect. I understand CX gets heated sometimes but yelling over your opponent, being condescending, etc won’t win you points with me.
Framework: Please have one at the top of the constructive. It’s difficult to debate literally every aspect of a resolution without some reasonable restrictions to ground or without telling me how I should evaluate the round. I’m not sure why this has become a trend, but debaters have started framing debates/running observations in their rebuttals (not overviews, full blown frameworks). If a framework turns up anywhere but the beginning of the constructive, I won’t flow it. I don’t think framing the debate in the rebuttal (the second rebuttal especially) is particularly fair.
Weighing: Please weigh especially if you’re working with two different metrics (money and lives for example). If you don’t weigh, I have to do the weighing myself and I prefer not to.
Rebuttals: I understand the value of the line by line. What I dislike are massive card dumps with 8 responses against each subpoint. I reward debaters who can make sound logical arguments (with a source or two where appropriate) to dismantle a contention. Please warrant all responses. Warrants can be logical or source based. I don’t want to hear “my opponent is wrong.” Or “this contention doesn’t make sense”...tell me WHY your argument is true. (This should be self explanatory, but I’ve written too many ballots that say the words “no warrant/please warrant your response).
The Summary: There isn’t no enough time to cover a line by line in a summary. Give me logical responses (sources if you have to) to arguments and crystallize the debate. Set up the voting issues.
Final Focus: Don’t run new arguments in the Final Focus.
Id be happy to answer any other questions you have before the start of the round.
Amy Morr Paradigm
Renea Moss Paradigm
Dolores Muller Paradigm
Jenny Neel Paradigm
Jamaque Newberry Paradigm
Shawn Nix Paradigm
I have judged debate since 2001. Since 2014, I have coached Public Forum and Speech events and am the current Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina. In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh the round. Speed speaking isn't real world and I won't flow what I can't understand. Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. I look for logical links to impact, clear organized argumentation that tells me how to vote. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Have fun and enjoy the activity!
For Speech events. I am always enthusiastic about great cutting and a good story in interp. In platform events, great organization is invaluable. During competition, show me you believe what you are telling me!
Scott Odekirk Paradigm
I am going back to flowing in a traditional way, I now priviledge organization and technical competency alongside content depth. I am sick of the way that the speech doc is ruining the flow. I don't like reading cards after the debate, please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow." Do what you do best.
Michael Orfield Paradigm
Debate: I do not like spreading. I like to see 2-4 good arguments advanced and hotly debated, rather than try to keep up with 12-15 aff and neg positions, all setting up the argument that the opponent failed to address certain points. I appreciate the debater who is able to get in and out of an argument without spending unnecessary time in attack or defense. I absolutely favor civility over rude and boorish behavior. Best way to lose speaker points and risk loss in the round is to attack your opponents rather than their positions.
Speech: My biggest complaint on the speech side is lack of enunciation. Connecting with the audience with good eye contact is important. Watch those gestures and what you do with your arms, hands and legs when not being used as a natural prop. Keep your volume up. I so enjoy hearing what the students have written, their take on issues of the day, or the ability to tell a good story. I also love the acting abilities as the students move through an interpretation. I do not need to be thanked at the end of the round. I believe there should be a distance between the judge and the competitor, lest any contact be seen as an improper attempt to persuade.
Yogesh Pande Paradigm
Laura Pincus Paradigm
Anne Poyner Paradigm
Annie Reyes Paradigm
My name is Annie Reyes and my daughter does Varsity Extemp. That being said,I am a parent-lay judge with 3 years of experience for judging PF. I understand the rules of PF and basic procedure, however, I do not understand Tricks nor tech debate. Keep it simple, stupid. Argument development, cross-ex, and delivery are what I will be judging on the most. In addition, use proper sources for evidence and try to back up your arguments with them as much as possible. Please try to keep the round simple as I will not tolerate rudeness nor disrespect. I will also be judging on impacts and how well you are able to sell and relate your argument back to people. Also, make sure to keep your own times. Finally, NO SPREADING. You may talk fast, so long as it is understandable. If i can't understand what you're saying, then I won't be able to properly rank you.
Hope you have fun at the tournament and Good Luck!
Bailey Rung Paradigm
Hey y'all, I'm Bailey. I'm the graduate assistant for NFA-LD debate at Western Kentucky University. I previously coached LD & CX for Ridge HS (NJ). I competed successfully in NFA-LD (1-person policy) & limited preps @ Western Kentucky University, and in a multitude of formats for Blaine HS (MN). I have a B.A. in Communication Studies and am pursuing a M.A. in Social Responsibility & Sustainable Communities (both @ WKU). Go Tops!
I consider my self as tab as possible, and familiar with the conventions of all debate events beside PF. I spend nearly all of my time in the world of NFA-LD, though I still like to keep up with HS debate as much as is reasonable.
Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Stand up for yourself and others when others violate that expectation. I'll do the same. Forensics should be accessible and comfortable.
Performance skills matter and boost speaks/determine ranks, but of course it's different what that looks like in each event. Speed is fine, but be cognizant of your opponent, other judges, and which event you are actually competing in (Policy is policy, local LD is not circuit LD, and congress & extemp require public address skills). If you can't/don't want to stand, go for it.
Strategic execution (tech) always comes first, but any page can only be won with superior warrant analysis (truth) under an offense/defense paradigm. After that, weigh everything. Weigh dropped arguments, don't just extend them. While clearly dropped arguments can be devastating, if it's simply a poorly constructed argument then it probably won't factor heavily for me.
Don't advocate for fascist, racist, sexually violent, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. I don't want to hear death good, skep, or religion. Other than that, you do you - Mearsheimer to Moten, I'll listen - but it's still your prerogative to properly articulate your argument. T/Theory is fine.
I read/went for the following most often (in order): big advantages & topic DAs, politics, impacts turns, T/Theory, advantage & agent CPs, post-structuralism, cap, a range of environment literature. I'm academically experienced (in order of depth) on semiotics, discourse theory, normative ethics, Marxist theory, post-structuralism, and existentialism. I pursue a personal reading interest in IR theory, criminal justice, environmental issues, and the milieu of national politics.
Event specific -
Specificity of plan text and quality of solvency evidence matter to me. If the neg ultimately defends the status quo but doesn't have good case args, it's likely the neg will lose. It's surprising I have to say these things, but it happens more often than one might expect.
Kritikal and Performance affs are fine, topical or not. This does not imply I won't vote on framework if won by the neg. That, however, does not imply i automatically vote neg on framework every time. I hold the advocacy to the same scrutiny I would for a plan.
I enjoy framing & weighing out of the 1AC.
I most often see DA debate as a question of who controls the direction of the link offense. Obviously weighing is a must, but I put a lot of stock into this - that or impact turns. Solely defensive strategies, even with impact framing tend to be non-persuasive. Some terminal defense exists (like bill already passed, etc.) - definitely an exception.
I went for politics A LOT, and really enjoy these debates.
I'm open to most strategies.
It's pretty uncommon for me to vote on condo bad. I'm more open to positions like PICs or States bad.
Presumption doesn't necessarily flip to the aff - specifically if the 2NR has good case arguments with DA/Turns.
CP solvency/text should be at least as detailed than the 1AC's, if not more. That said, the CP doesn't necessarily need to solve 100% - whether on probability or scope, if CP has a high risk of solving the most of the aff that can be sufficient if the DA/Turns outweigh.
I enjoy good K debates the same as any other strategy. As a judge I end up seeing this debate a lot, and have no real preferences for or against any given strand of literature or in-round execution.
I'm most familiar with literature stemming from the continental branch of philosophy. Some of my personal favorite authors include Baudrillard, Bookchin, Butler, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, Luxembourg, Marx, Morton, & Zizek. That said, the majority of K debates I judge tend to be questions of identity and security (respectively) - which I also enjoy. I feel comfortable evaluating most anything.
I don't think the neg must absolutely go for/win the alternative, so long as the neg has good framing. Really, though, the neg should always be winning framing.
I generally find pure theory to be unpersuasive as an aff response. Perms are usually the best route, so are researched defenses of contemporary policy-making.
I've been finding lately that really close K debates have come down to who better presents empirical examples of the link and alt to contextualize theoretical warrants.
I particularly enjoy good topicality debates. I default to competing interps & jurisdiction voters.
I like theory debate so long as it relates to a Plan/CP/Alt/RoB text, or another theory text (a good RVI is rare but persuasive). In other words, ASPEC is cool - bracket theory is meh. Strike me if you're going to complain about your opponent's attire.
I'm neutral when it comes to FW debates - I'll vote for performance/sans-plan K affs as much as I vote for Framework. I generally place a high value on arguments over the academic & personal value of one's scholarship. Fairness is important, but I see these debates as ultimately a question of who wins (in the context of the round) that their educational/pedagogical praxis is preferable.
Clear & specific wording of interpretations is critical. Same with contextualized violations. If you're going to go for it, make it clean.
Great 2NRs/2ARs go all-in, and put voting issues at the top of the speech.
I don't like abstract reasonability arguments - my likeliness to vote for reasonability is entirely based on either the strength of a legitimate I-meet or the counter-interp's ability to resolve a substantial portion of the neg standards.
Outside of framework, I generally think fairness comes first.
Please use speechdrop. Prep stops when everything is put in your document. Don't steal prep.
Flex prep is fine.
CX is binding. I pay attention to CX. Excellent CX will boost your speaks.
Always weigh everything. Excellent weighing will boost your speaks.
Always collapse the debate. Excellent collapses will boost your speaks.
If the round is left unresolved, I will intervene and do my own comparison. I will be as fair as I can do each side and will let you know if this happens.
I'll always disclose unless told otherwise. More than happy to answer questions.
Bonus speaks for 'Good' Anarchism, DeDev, & Extraterrestrials arguments.
HS LD --
You can really just check my CX paradigm for most of my substantive preferences. Here are some event specific thoughts:
>Please justify your framework.
>I have a low threshold for 1AR/2AR extensions given the time, but warrants are still a must. I hate tag fights more than anything. 2AR impact weighing is fine.
>spending ~2:00 extending the aff card-by-card will likely lose you the round and tank your speaks. Part of the game is parsimony and efficiency. Have an overview for a page and do line-by-line.
>I will evaluate and occasionally vote on 1AR theory, but the stupider the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. Things like CP theory, and RVIs against super abusive T/Theory NCs are infinitely better than, say "pre- or post-fiat, but not both" or "my opponent is wearing a tie". Even when 1ar theory is good (rare), there's usually not enough time to develop and win.
> The 1NC should have framework comparison - waiting until the NR rarely pays off. 2NR impact weighing is fine.
> Please collapse in the NR - don't go for everything. Winning/high speaks NRs usually go all in on T/Theory or the K, or go for case and/or CP with a DA. Leaving yourself multiple outs is smart, but this should be done in reference to whatever you go for ('case or CP' or 'turns or DA') - not wildly extending everything in the NC.
>80% of my rounds end up being Policy-making or K debates, and I don't have any event specific thoughts here. K framing work should be done in the NC, though this seems obvious.
>'Phil' debate: I think ethics debates are super fun, and really enjoy the literature. I will evaluate these debates, though I have two thoughts: (1) Just because it's LD doesn't mean I have to/will automatically default to ethical theory over policy-making or the K (2) extending 5-second blips you label 'a prioris' without warrants and spewing jargon without explanation is not a winning strategy - understand your ethic and interact it.
> Again, T/Theory is fine, but the dumber the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. I enjoy actual T debates over words in the res, and theory debates over writing of the plan (ASPEC, Vagueness, etc.). I can't stand 'formal dress theory' or 'bracket theory' - do some prep and make real arguments.
> I'm slightly more likely to vote on condo bad in LD than CX. Same thing with reasonability - though this is all relative.
Do your thing - I'm super tab, keep a good flow, and am fairly well read. I've invested a lot of time into this style of the event as a coach and really enjoy it. I don't have many thoughts here - I'd check my tl:dr section for general debate things.
> Please justify your framework - it's shocking the proportion of debaters who don't or do so poorly.
> Warrant and weigh - the earlier the better.
> Don't take excessive prep for early speeches (NC/1AR).
> If you want to kick framework and go for case, go for it. These debates are often the most fun.
Michael Rutledge Paradigm
I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.
When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.
For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.
Devin Sarno Paradigm
Diana Shall Paradigm
Sara-Jane Shepperd Paradigm
Brigid Sherry Paradigm
Stacey Sims Paradigm
Generally, I like a well-formed outline driven debate. Spreading to the extent understandable is acceptable; however, if you talk too fast to understand I will not consider it. I hate performance debates. Tell me why you should win. Point on deficiencies in opponents arguments.
John Slack Paradigm
Shelley Spiegel Paradigm
Carrie Spina Paradigm
Karl Stock Paradigm
Preston Stolte Paradigm
Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS
Years Judging: 10
if I have judged you in the past/if I judge you, feel free to fill out this form and I will post responses at the bottom.
TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, tech > truth, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful and certainly malleable.
***prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'***
**if you debate for a school that floods the judge pool with parent judging at national tournaments, you can effectively ignore this paradigm and should expect me to judge you as a parent judge would. if you have to ask does this apply to you/your school, it probably does**
*If you are an LD debater, this should give you a good idea of how to debate in front of me. Feel free to ask more specific questions before the round.*
Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy.
This being said, if I am judging you in LD, here are a few things I've realized about myself that you should know: I find myself seeing most 'traditional/phil' strategies to be lacking in offense and largely ill explained; I think bad theory arguments are wildly unpersuasive and generally default to drop the arg; I think 'spikes' (especially when undisclosed) are not arguments and generally give the neg decent amount of leeway to make responses once they actually become warranted arguments.
-Truth v Tech: I find myself more frequently deciding close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, as I get older I find myself much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.
-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.
-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow. If I say clear it is because I cannot hear/flow you and you probably want me to have your arguments, if you hear me say clear and your opponent doesnt get more clear, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to ask me before CX what arguments I did/did not get on my flow because I don't see why you should have to answer arguments that I didn't even have flowed. this seems to be a problem that is especially true in LD.
-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is becoming an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR.
Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.
-Things that will earn you speaker points: being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, politeness, well executed strategies/arguments.
-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand/just reading blocks
Prep time stops when the email is sent
If you had to give advice to a team who had this judge in the back of the room, what would you tell them?
--Do whatever you’re good at, he’ll be down for it.
--Read your normal arguments, but make sure you explain them correctly and are able to connect your arguments to the 2nr/2ar explanation.
--read what you feel comfortable explaining and is most strategic in your eyes
On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the least similar and 10 being the most similar, rate how you thought the round went down matched up to this judge's assessment of the round based on the RFD
What was the quality of this judge's RFD?
What was the quality of this judge's post-round comments?
What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is familiar with?
--I feel like he has a wide base of knowledge over a broad range of literature, which helps a lot in both Policy v Policy debates and Policy v K debates.
--Topic specific literature of policy affs/DA's and mostly familiar with the literature in the round
--Policy and Kritik
What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is unfamiliar with?
--Maybe the pomo bs people have are reading (baudrillard, bataille, etc.)
--This was only for a specific post-round question, but the judge wasn't 100% sure about ontology cards to read when aff vs settler colonialism.
--LD Moral Frameworks/LD Analytic Philosophy debates
Do you have any additional comments?
--Very thorough and helpful RFD!
--Make sure to be explicit in not allowing judge intervention, ie "dont kick this for them"
Anthony Survance Paradigm
I'm a second year out public forum debater. in high school i did pf for 4 years at duPont Manual and attended the UK Toc my senior year. in college i compete at Western Kentucky in LD debate, as a two time PKD national champion. Currently I coach teams from Manual and am relatively familiar with the topics as I do topic research.
I'm fine with speed and prefer it when teams go quickly as long as it isnt used as a tool to exclude others. Additionally because people don't read full cards in PF if you go super quickly be cautious as i may miss stuff if the cards are just blippily read. With that said though i am used to people spreading so i wouldn't worry too much about going to fast.
Weighing is one of the most important things for me in PF because i find rounds often get muddled and lack an easy place to vote so i want to be told exactly what issues are the most important and where to vote. This means there needs to be a clear collapse in summery with that argument well impacted out in final focus.
Clash is also extremely important to me in PF. This means a few things. The second speaking team must cover the ink that was just put on their case in the first rebuttal as it makes the round easier to follow and fosters more clash if you choose not to and then the first summary makes extensions I'm not going to be very receptive to your new responses in second summary. Additionally please avoid only responding to taglines, if you don't give a warrant for your response, or concede their warrant the argument is functionally conceded.
Please give me a clear road map because I'm flowing and hate it especially in summaries when they don't make sense or aren't easy to flow due to lack of a road map. This doesn't mean you can't get creative in your order just have one and make it clear.
Beyond this I'm willing to vote on just about anything as long as it isn't blatantly offensive. I also really like when debaters try new things so step outside of the box, so especially in PF don't be afraid to try arguments that may not generally be the norm.
I've been competing in the college LD circuit for two years. This means im good with just about any policy based argument you all want to run.
For Theory-- I default to competing interps and am willing to vote on just about any theory position. With that being said i would certainly prefer it if you went for substance or the theory had some sort of abuse story that is certainly not necessary for me to vote on it.
For the K-- I'm pretty comfortable with evaluating the K, however if its a more obscure K then i would prefer you to go slower during the collapse or contextualize it so i know what im voting for
Ruthie Taylor Paradigm
Jim Trammel Paradigm
Joe Vaughan Paradigm
I am the coach of Scarsdale HS and have been in th activity for 20 some odd years
As a member of the LD Wording Committee, I prefer to hear arguments that are actually about the topics. I will listen to any well reasoned and explained arguments though although voting on argument not about the topic will probably make me want to give poor points.
Don’t steal time. Once the timer starts at the beginning of the round, it doesn’t stop. Whatever electronic shuffling you want to do, water that you want to drink, happens on your time.
No, I don’t want to be on the speech doc. I want to flow and think. Therefore, if you want it on my flow, you have to speak at a speed and clarity that allows that to happen. I would say that about half what you believe to be your fastest speed is probably appropriate.
i would prefer fewer cards and stats that are actually contextualized and explained than a slurry of paraphrased nonsense. Anyone can make individualized stats dance, but a solid debater can explain the context of that work and how it links to other pieces of info
Miranda Villanueva Paradigm
Angela Vrana Paradigm
Courtney Walsh Paradigm
Rachel West Paradigm
Symone Whalin Paradigm
Eric Willis Paradigm
Cindy Wright Paradigm
Jenny Zheng Paradigm
Relevant experience: 2.5 years of speech judging experience
Preferences for the round: before the round begins, indicate what type of time signal they'd like; speak clearly; talk at a normal speed (do NOT spread).