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!
Gloria-Andrea Alcala Paradigm
I'm a first year out. Debated CX at Winston Churchill. 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. That being said as long as you are clear and explain arguments I'm fine with it.
T- I default competing interps
CP/DA- Don't stress as long as you have a clear story as to whats going on.
K- I enjoy K debates, but i'm not an expert at every literature base so take time to explain these arguments. That's mainly for any funky K's, but cap or set col don't need a step by step explanation I understand those lmao.
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 :)
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.
Jeremiah Gutierrez 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.
Anevay Ramirez Paradigm
I am a first year out and I did CX and LD at Austin SFA from 2015-2019.
I would like to be on the email chain - email@example.com
I have 0 preference for argumentative style (traditional, “progressive” etc). Yes I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go.
Tech/Truth: I default to tech on arguments I either have personal opinions about or don’t understand but please don’t mistake tech as just having more ink on the flow. I swing more towards truth in matters where whatever is being said is like common knowledge or a fact about current events etc.
I will not disclose your speaker points and I won’t give you a 30.
Speaker points are 60% strategy and quality of argumentation and 40% how clearly you spoke and your in round etiquette. I will give you the lowest points I can if you are nasty. Don’t be.
Kritiks: Fantastic. Please make sure you understand it and you explain it clearly. I’m probably familiar with whoever you are reading so I wouldn’t downvote you because I don’t know/understand the author but the burden is still on you to explain and win their argument as if I don’t know who they are.
T: Please be mindful I have not judged many rounds on this (nov/dec) LD or policy topic so I have 0 preconceived notions of what is T and what is not. You must give me a clear violation->impact story.
Theory: If you’re in LD or PF-I don’t evaluate theory. Ask me for clarifiers if you must. CX- do your thing.
Disads and Counterplans are great! Make your link stories specific! Please, don’t forget to debate about the aff!
Please be nice to each other. Don’t quote the TFA rules at me. Run whatever arguments you want but you absolutely must tell me a coherent story that is backed by your evidence.
Noah Recker Paradigm
Benjamin Wolf Paradigm
Updated January 2020
I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions before or after rounds. Also I would like to be on the email chain if there is one.
TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, 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 but will probably result in higher speaks.
Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. 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.
-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am 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 will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.
-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.
-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is 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. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate 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. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.
The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.
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, efficiency.
-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, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.
Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.
Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.
CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.
DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on whats going on.
Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.