Central Texas District Tournament
2020 — US
Abdelmajied Al-Ali Paradigm
I have over 7 years of debate experience as a competitor and private tutor. My experience includes DX, Oratory, Policy, PF, Congress, and LD. I have multiple state and national qualifications, and competed in the competitive Houston circuit. In addition, I am an award-winning speaker.
Debate is cool, but to me public speaking is king. Therefore, I care about your speaking. Good fluency will give you good speaker points. In terms of winning the actual debate, I want your arguments to be easy to understand. I can understand complex debate as a hired judge, but you will not always be able to have former debaters hear you argue. You will win by proving to me that your case has a bigger impact than your opponents. Show me the numbers and show me the facts. Prove to me that your side of the case is better. Also, solvency is a big factor in my decisions.
This all holds true whether I am judging you in congress, LD, PF, or policy. In addition, I am a pretty friendly guy and hate to see debates get heated. I need both sides to remain cordial with each other, I will dock speaker points if you are being rude to your opponents. Debate is won on arguments, not intimidation.
Good luck and feel free to ask me any questions!
Joseph Bahr Paradigm
Kay Edwards Paradigm
My name is Kay Edwards (she/her). I did policy debate for four years at North Lamar High School. I currently judge in/around Austin, primarily.
If you are using an email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.
I don't tend to count attaching to the email/flash as prep, but if you are moving things between documents the clock needs to be running. If it takes an excessive amount of time, I will let you know that you need to restart your prep time; this isn't personal, but this is the primary reason I have experienced for rounds running behind.
Overall, I think debate should be about what kind of argumentation you find "best" for you personally. I am comfortable with and equally as happy to listen to a well-warranted policy debate as I am a well-warranted kritikal or performance debates.
Stylistically, I am good with speed. I won't call clear; I will still try to flow you even if there is a clarity issue. If you are truly going too fast for me (a speed issue, not a clarity issue), I'll try to let you know by raising my hand. Realistically, as long as you slow down a bit on T/theory interpretations (or make sure they are word-for-word in the email), this shouldn't be a problem.
Additionally, I really like good internal organization of the flow - good signposting, line-by-line, clearly moving between positions, etc. These things are all worthy of a boost in speaker points. As for speaker points, I tend to assign them primarily based on strategic decisions (I would love to talk about strategy, if you want, because it is the single most important thing to a policy debate round and the most underutilized tool), quality of extensions and warrant analysis, and (as stated) keeping the flow organized. I'll dock speaks for excessive rudeness; laughing at your opponent, shouting each other down, etc.
This is mostly covered in the "My Philosophy" section above. I will add that I am just fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.
One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing or I will probably just default to an offense/defense paradigm.
Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!
If emailing about a specific round, let me know the tournament, round, your name, and what the 2NR was (it helps me remember more about the debate/find any docs I have saved).
Jose Gonzalez Paradigm
Caleb Newton Paradigm
Brandon Niday Paradigm
I have the most experience in PF and CX, but have also competed and judged LD. I'm a policymaker through and through. I'm also a hybrid of traditional and progressive styles. I don't like any discourse-related arguments, though I am willing to listen to a moral-based utilitarianism case (no, they aren't exclusive). Framing is encouraged. Read your tags, counterplan texts, and analytics really, really, really slowly. I don't mind spreading on the card bodies though.
Disads: You won't win a big-stick disadvantage unless you win utilitarianism/magnitude good because I personally believe that improbable impacts should be ignored.
Counterplans: I'm cool with these so long as I can understand what it is—read the text slowly and thoroughly analyze why it would solve better than the affirmative.
Topicality: Don't run these unless it's a real violation. Don't speed through the body of these arguments in the 1NC since it signals that the argument is only a time-suck and I likely won't be hear all parts of it.
Kritiks: I enjoy evaluating a well-run kritik, but those are in short supply. Be prepared to spend the majority of the bloc on this alone. Provide authentic analysis on the substance of the kritik so I can understand better. Discourse claims aren't
Theory: Personally a big fan of these. Point out and articulate the issue of abuse.
General Notes for PF: Extend everything—I won't do the work for you. The summary should be a mix of line-by-line but also needs to crystalize where you're winning. Meta-weighing is encouraged.
General Notes for LD: I don't particularly like the value/criterion aspect of the debate, and would prefer if you avoided frivolous definition arguments. Off-case arguments are great! I prefer disadvantages and counterplans. However, they should be supplemented with case evidence.
Arizechukwu Okolo Paradigm
Evan Ortiz Paradigm
Brianna Rodriguez Paradigm
I did congress for three years at James Bowie High School in Austin TX!
No spreading! Please don’t use an ungodly amount of time to find/share cards (but I do understand that everyone has different resources that may take longer than others). Please keep theories/counter plans/k’s out of the round (most of the time, I can follow what you’re saying, but I will not be able to properly weigh it). Be nice.
Please be sure to clearly weigh in both speeches. Any offense you want me to vote on must be extended as well.
Once again, please be nice to each other!
xoxo gossip girl
As you can see, I was more of a speech competitor. As long as you send me your email chain, I should be fine! Please include both of my emails, sometimes wifi is funky and doesn't upload on one or the other:
email@example.com AND firstname.lastname@example.org.
Keep in mind that I'm not the greatest at keeping up with you while you spread, so a nice signpost or recap every now and then is nice.
Roy Salazar Paradigm
Spencer Schumacher Paradigm
My name is Spencer Schumacher I do LD and Speech at North Oldham HS in Kentucky, and have completed nationally for both. I have respect for both traditional and progressive debate and will vote on both. I love philosophy and love framework debate so bring it on and don't say you Kant (sorry I love puns). I'm generally Tabula Rasa, if your opponent makes a dumb argument it's your job to point it out not mine.
Speed- I can flow spreading, but not well. If you are going to Spread I'm going to ask that you flash both me and your opponent your case. If there's one person spreading and one not in the room, I'm going to give the higher speaks to the one not spreading.
Plans/CP- I love them but don't try to hide them as an “alt” or a “Area of Impact”, defend the plan.
Kritiks- Not my favorite but I'll vote on them if you prove a ROB/ROJ, that being said don't run a K if it can easily be a shell.
Framework- I'm voting off of the winning framework, if you don't present a framework you better link to your opponents.
Theory Shells- I love them but don't dwell on them, hit it and go on. Also please don't do pseudo-theory, I'll understand the she'll just run it.
Abuse- I rely on the debaters to police abuse themselves, if something's abusive run a shell and we'll find out. That said, if you do something abusive in the NR or the 2AR that your opponent can'tâ€‹ or doesn't have the time to address I'll intervene.