Central Texas District Tournament
2020 — US
Mbayi Aben Paradigm
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!
Jayloni Alvarado Paradigm
For email chains - firstname.lastname@example.org.
I competed in speech and debate events throughout high school. Specifically, LD debate all four years, and then Extemp in my last three years. So my source of knowledge in every debate round is primarily driven from my experiences in those events. I have a fair bit of knowledge of progressive debate. It would be to your benefit to ask me whether or not I am familiar with whatever you're wanting to run before the start of the round if it's more of a nontraditional argument/case. Chances are i will be okay with whatever it is your planning to run as long as you are able to explain it to me clear enough in round. If you don't think you know your case well enough to explain it, it will be a lot harder to vote up if i don't understand it either.
I don't prefer speed, but can handle it in any debate event as a long as you provide a clear and coherent speech. I'll flow it if I can understand it, but make sure you slow down on your tags. I value quality arguments over quantity. Don't expect me to flow incoherent speech/tags. If i can't hear the tag in constructive, i wont extend those arguments in rebuttals.
There are some arguments that as a judge I don't want to see in a debate round. Arguments that are sexist/trans-phobic/homo-phobic/racist/etc.... I will flow whatever you want to run in the round, just understand as you have your own views on certain topics, so do i.
Tag your arguments. Even if you're thinking it sounds repetitive it helps me as a judge follow the debate and make clear what is dropped in the round. The road-map you give is rarely 100% followed, so the best thing to do is tag as you go in the round.
K's- I enjoy well run K's quite a lot. The most important part of the K for me is the Link and has to be upheld throughout the round by whoever is running the K. Don't expect me just to automatically believe the Alt and the implications. Take your time to provide a strong amount of argumentation for the k if it the focal point of case.
DA's- Run whatever you feel is appropriate. Don't expect me to automatically flow any DA's through with out you properly extending them. Tell me the short tag for each DA in the road map so i can flow them properly.
CP's- Take your time to explain the plan text. I enjoy creative CP's as long as they remain probable. Even if the plan leans towards the more abstract side of debate these are still fun, but make sure you effectively explain them in the time you have.
T- T arguments is okay. Don't run it unless your confident there is a violation warranting the argument. Please take as much time as you can on this if you believe this changes the ballot. Don't forget to still extend your own case / arguments through because i will still consider them dropped if you don't extend them.
Theory- I'm not too familiar with any particular theory arguments. I'm okay with hearing them as long as the articulation of the argument is clear and then you still provide proper analysis on how its relevant to the round.
LD- I find my self to vote on the given role of the ballot if there is one. If you set up a burden make sure to point out whether or not it has been met and why it's relevant to the scope of the debate. Value / Criterion debate is important in every round as it established a ground for the basis of your case (only if there is one in case). Don't forget about them by the time we get to your final speech. please remember i am NOT flowing anything in CX, this is time allotted for the debaters to ask clarifying questions not to give voters. No open prep.
PF- Be clear about your impact calc and the clearer speakers tend to grab my ballot.
CX- I'm open to any type of debate the round turns into. Don't provide frivolous arguments just for the point of having them. i much rather hear quality arguments then those that are being thrown out simply to suck up time. Give clear road maps and address a clear order. Just ac/nc is okay but address the order of the DA's / CP's / and any other arguments that are going to be addressed. establish drops first thing in your speech please. I don't want to see any prompting in cross.
The debate should be fun for everyone involved. Always just try to be respectful. Good spirited competitors will see that their energy reflects the speaker's points they earn in the round. But the same goes for those who try to bring the mood down with negative attitudes in the round. I understand in some events like CX the cross can be pretty heated, which is OK as long as all debaters are remaining respectful of each other.
Elizabeth Boone Paradigm
John Canon Paradigm
Miguel Castro Paradigm
Dinah Chukwu Paradigm
Tyler Cole Paradigm
CX paradigm: When it comes to CX debate I find myself normally more of a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. I classify myself as a policy maker judge, tell me why your plan, or status quo/ counterplan, is better than the proposition the opposite side is making. Additionally, I believe stock issues to be quintessential in arguing your side, although drop(s) on stock issues do not equate to a winning ballot. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument and every stock issue is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and not tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. I’ll flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round. I am not particularly a fan of K debates, however if the competitor thinks they can be successful in properly communicating the K, I will listen to it. In terms of having an open cross examination during the debate, I will allow it, however, I expect the competitor who is supposed to be question/answering to do most of the talking.
LD paradigm: When it comes to LD debate I find myself normally more a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. In addition to that, I believe that LD debate is centered around the value/criterion debate, as a result, I will not vote on any plan text presented by either side. I also appreciate debaters who treat their value/criterion as a fundamental to not only their case, but also on their arguments against their opponents case. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and don’t tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. I’ll flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round.
Elizabeth Contreras Paradigm
In PF, I firmly believe quality of speech is just as important as the quality of the content. That being said, quality of speech will only affect speaker points, not my final ballot decision. In terms of content, I like to see well constructed cases extended through the entirety of the round. Start strong, finish strong. It's also vital that arguments be extended through the entire round or they will be considered dropped. I advise against collapsing on a single argument or contention but if it's well developed and defended enough, then it can work in your favor. In general, I'll vote for any kind of argument but what matters most to me are clear and concise impacts. I like a good impact weighing in the last speeches as well as voters. Speed is fine but again- quality of speech is important to me. I also listen closely to crossfire and love to see the questions asked during cx be brought up in the subsequent speeches.
I'm gradually becoming more open to theory in PF so if you feel like your link chains are solid, I'm ready to hear them.
I don't like speed, I don't want to hear spreading. while reading case, you shouldn't be close to spreading. however, if you need to speak quickly in rebuttal, summary and final focus to extend/respond, i am okay with it.
Also I don't shake hands but I promise I still respect and value you.
* it is really important to me that you are respectful to each other in round. respect your partner, respect your opponents and respect me. debate is a space for education. *
Maggie Davis Paradigm
I'm a first year out. Debated CX at Winston Churchill. I did policy for two years and LD for two years.
Please add me to the email chain; my email is email@example.com
You can run anything as long as you can explain it. Don't expect me to know every acronym or specifics about any lit
T- I default competing interps. I don't evaluate RVIs
CP/DA- Love to see it. Don't stress as long as you have a clear story as to whats going on.
K debates- assume I haven't read the lit. the NR should be clear in terms of what needs to be evaluated.
theory- frivolous theory debates are a waste of time- don't do it.
phil- didn't run it in high school. Don't like it now.
FW- I evaluate it like normal.
General- Don't be rude. Your speaker points will reflect your behavior if this is a problem and I will really not want to vote for you.
if you have any more questions you can just ask me :)
Rosendo DeLeon Paradigm
Carlos Diaz Paradigm
Samuel Garcia Paradigm
Jeremiah Gutierrez Paradigm
Kimberly Lee Paradigm
Jude McClaren Paradigm
In all honesty, I'm a pretty traditional judge. I love to hear evidence that is empirical and quantifiable. I also like to see competitors who are genuinely debating, not just being an advocate for some author and reading evidence the whole round. I want to know why you're making the world a better place. I mainly vote on impacts.
I understand you have to speak faster than normal to get through your case, but please, don't spread. I also love to see competitors who are impassioned and genuinely look like they care about what they're debating. Also, remember that presentation is something that includes body language, facial expressions, gestures, etc.
A note on PF:
The way that I was taught, PF at its core is in its name, public forum. Which means it's an event that is accessible to everyone. This is not LD & CX so any plans won't be flowed.
Kimiya Monfared Paradigm
Caleb Newton Paradigm
Sophie Nguyen Paradigm
Make everything clear
I do flow :-)
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.
Juan Nunez Paradigm
Katherine O'Neal Paradigm
I am a traditional judge but, I will vote on progressive arguments if I feel like they are appropriately used in round and are executed properly. I prefer logical arguments made over the number of cards read. Speed is acceptable and can be used in round, however I will stop flowing and put my pen down if I can not understand the debater. I mainly vote on arguments that have tangible impacts or that uphold the framework. I do not like to vote on arguments made about abuse or time suck. If you have questions about my paradigms, feel free to ask me to clarify before rounds.
Evan Ortiz Paradigm
Clay Parker Paradigm
Amy Pozza Paradigm
I debated CX in high school in the mid-90s and started coaching a few years ago. I am still playing catch-up, but I have been working with several coaches to get current with the range of arguments. I enjoy K debate. If you run a multitude of positions, make sure to collapse in the NR. Whatever the positions, I want to see a good debate with clash, clear explanations of warrants, and impact calculus. Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Noah Recker Paradigm
David Rodriguez Paradigm
Roy Salazar Paradigm
Meera Sam Paradigm
Impact calculus is important to me, I want to see a clear weighing of the both worlds. I like clean, down the flow debate with a lot of clash. Sign-post during speeches.
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.