Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV
2017 — NV/US
Tommy Zammir Abraham Paradigm
Nicole Adachi Paradigm
Tifffany Agustin Paradigm
Rebecca Bacani Paradigm
Andrew Bacrau Paradigm
I am currently an undergraduate senior at the George Washington University in DC. I`m double majoring in International Relations and Philoosphy. I`ve done some Parliamentary debate in college, but my relevant experience for this circuit comes from high school. One year of LD and one year of CX.
Since I`ve been out of the CX circuit for a while, my capacity to listen and comprehend 500+ words/minute is not in the same shape it`s been four years ago, so please take it a little slower than what maybe you are used to in order to preserve clarity and intelligibility. As for my views on CX debate, these are some useful things you can keep in mind:
1. I can vote on anything, in so far as you explain me why that particular argument is THE MOST significant argument in the round. Show me through analysis why that argument in itself should be the sole reason for the ballot.
2. I believe that Topicality is the "greyest" style of argumentation in CX. Yes it can win, but I`ve often seen teams that either just drop it in the NEG block or do a poor job of explaining its salience. It can be a strong argument but you need to explain me why the AFF doesn`t follow the linguistic rules that ought to be conducted in debate.
3. I`m interested in whatever critiques are popular in the current format. Just remember to explain me the link properly. Just because you read the Genealogy of Morals or some Adorno does not necessarily give you either an intellectual insight into their arguments nor some sort of literary authority. Don`t assume I know much about your K and explain why that particular level of abstractness enables your links to flow in the way you think they do. If you choose Analytic Philosophers your job is most likely going to be easier, because they are more explicit about how their i/l work in relation to the impact they`re trying to portray. Continental Philosophers [Hegel, Zizek] are also welcomed, but their style of argumentation lies more in the power of interpretation- and yes, Zizek is continental.
4. As for foreign policy, please remember that you cannot invent causal links on the spot. I know that the usage of nuclear weapons is going to be a predominant discussion. Please keep in mind that the US` security policy framework is heavily revolved around bureaucracies and SOP`s [Standard Operating Procedures]. I am aware of academics [including from reputable universities] that will make the same mistakes of creating these imaginary leaps into the manifestation of policy action. I prefer literature for people that work for the Dept. of State or any national organization of its like, but all arguments are fair game if you can persuade me on politics.
If you have any questions regarding my views, feel free to ask before the round stards. Either to clarify what is already here or add upon something that was not mentioned. Best of luck!
Hilario Barrios Paradigm
Mariahsen Bautista Paradigm
Gerard Blanco Paradigm
Emma Bloomfield Paradigm
Garrett Calloway Paradigm
Alexander Campbell Paradigm
Alexander Campbell Paradigm
Abigail Carranto Paradigm
Michiko Carter Paradigm
Shaodi Chen Paradigm
Kyle Chong Paradigm
Berkeley 19, Coach at the Nueva School
I first evaluate the framework debate, then I vote based on who generates the most offense off of the winning framework. I also appreciate a good strategy, so debaters who do a good job telling a coherent ballot story will make me happy. Finally, and arguably most importantly, I refuse to clear up clash for any team. This is the responsibility of the debaters.
Matt Conrad Paradigm
Since the judge philosophies wiki has been taken down, here's a temporary statement until I find my original Word file.
I'm a USC debate alum and have coached national circuit LD and policy at both La Reina High School and Polytechnic School in Southern California. Thus far, I've had kids in TOC policy finals and octos for Poly while we've had several nationally ranked kids at La Reina.
My basic philosophy in debate is to only intervene as minimally as possible. I do my best to keep an accurate flow and am happy to discuss rounds AFTER I upload my decision, so we don't make the tournament run late. That said, my background outside of speech and debate is in show business where you actually have to get things done. Thus, in a debate context, I want to know what it is that I'm voting for. If we're talking about solvency or some form of oppression, what does that mean in terms of dollars and lives.
Beyond that, I'm open to voting for whatever you run. The round belongs to you.
And politically, I'm a moderate/Bill Clinton Democrat.
Please include me on the email chain: email@example.com
Alexandra Cullors Paradigm
Liz DelSignore Paradigm
Daira Eamon Paradigm
Christian Eng Paradigm
My name is Christian Eng and I am happy to be judging, welcome to the tournament. I worked in both the restaurant and mortgage loan business, I am currently a substitute teacher with CCSD in southern Nevada. I have one year of policy debate experience, during the academic year of 2013-2014 I competed in Novice/JV for coach Jacob Thompson at UNLV.
I believe that the purpose of an argument is to both persuade and educate. I want to clearly know what you are advocating. If you feel like you have won certain arguments, give me clear statements defining why. It has been some time since I have been around debate and I am comfortable with a high speed debate, but if I am your judge, I highly recommend you take this opportunity to relax, slow down to a pace that is slightly faster than that of a regular conversation, and deliver some of your favorite arguments. I like impact comparisons and clear links.
Please include me in your email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org, this will help in the event that I need to review evidence after the round. I have my inbox linked to my phone, so if you have any questions, cannot find the room, or will be running late, please feel free to email me.
Kera Farmer Paradigm
Ana Flores Paradigm
Susan Foley Paradigm
I have been a coach for 7 years at Campbell Hall School in California. I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech. When saying an author's name and year - slow down and separate it from the rest of the text.
- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)
- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")
- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus
Things that are important for me:
- Clarity (please slow down when reading authors' names)
- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)
I do not want you to:
- Spread - I will not flow it
- Read trigger warning or disclosure theory or barely-there links to nuke war/extinction
- be rude/condescending/curt in CX
I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.
Makana Fong Paradigm
Jacob Ford Paradigm
Jan Gallardo Paradigm
Jessa Rel Garingo Paradigm
Stephany Gonzalez Paradigm
Lexy Green Paradigm
I am old. I have been coaching and judging for over 35 years. This means that much/most of my experience predates the existence of Public Forum. I competed primarily in Policy, Lincoln Douglas (in its first year of existence), and Extemp. I have coached Policy (in the Dark Ages), Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and assorted speech events.
Speed does not offend me. That said, I am OLD and have carpal tunnel syndrome, so my flow is sloooooow. I will not punish you with points if you are fast and clear, but there is a risk I may not get everything you want on my flow.
There are a lot of regional/circuit differences in PF norms. I recognize that answering refutation of one's case in the second constructive speech (when speaking second) is unusual in some areas of the country. That said, I am used to LD, where the first negative speech includes both the negative case and refutation of the affirmative case. Some LDers even go "straight ref" on the negative, entirely forgoing reading a negative case and only arguing against the affirmative case. I will not punish teams speaking second for beginning refutation in their first constructive, or for answering the first team's arguments against their case in their second constructive.
I do not like surprises, not even good surprises. I always peeked at my presents as a child. Arguments should be extended in the summary speech if you want to win on them in the final focus. I favor line by line until the final focus, which should crystalize the debate and provide clear impact calc.
I think topic wording is important and that it determines burdens. I like it when teams are explicit about what the topic wording demands. A kritik is just an argument. If you can explain how it affirms or negates the res, it's all good.
Plans and counterplans are not allowed. Don't blame me. I didn't make the rules. You chose this event, despite the rules. That said, I think it is fair (and even a good idea) to talk about how the resolution would be implemented (assuming it calls for action and is not simply a question of fact/value). One can do this by looking at real world, typical proposals for resolutional action. I also don't think that the affirmative should be stuck advocating the worst possible way to implement the resolutional policy.
Evidence is important. Cheating is bad. Read author and date cites. I will grudgingly allow paraphrased evidence, but the full text must be available and easily evaluable. By this I mean that it is not okay to paraphrase evidence and then, when asked to provide it, hand over a ten page document with no highlighting/underlining of the bits that you claim to be paraphrasing. If you cannot say, "this paraphrases these three lines of text in the original document," or something like that, I'm going to disregard this "evidence." Neither I nor your opponents should have to read through the entire document to assess whether your paraphrasing is accurate.
I hate crossfire, especially the Grand Cluster F*!k. Please don't yell or speak over each other. I recognize that this aspect of PF is conducive to chaos, and that you are not responsible for this design flaw. That said, I will punish you with speaker points if you make the crossfire worse than it has to be.
Argument > Style. This is debate. Style is reflected in speaker points.
Ashley Gugino Paradigm
Amanda Haikal Paradigm
Ting Tsun Hsu Paradigm
Marta Hubbard Paradigm
I have no preference between traditional and progressive LD; just run your strongest case. Nothing you run will go over my head.
I rarely vote on Disclosure Theory, feel free to run it, but know that you do so at your own risk.
I usually give around a 27, but it can vary. I have never given a 30, so try to be my first.
Good Trump Impression: +1 point
Bad Trump Impresstion:- 2 points
Lia Hwang Paradigm
Suraj Jagadeesh Paradigm
I debated all four years of high school, graduating from Harker in 2016. In general, I’m a flow judge, but my no means should you spread. *EDIT* flowing skills are down the drain so I'd prefer a slightly slower than average speaking style!
I have a decent amount of preconceived notions about the way public forum debate should operate, so I’ll just list a few.
First about speeches and what they should address, I believe that the second 2nd speaker doesn’t necessarily have to address what the first 2nd speaker said, but they have the option to do so. For the most part, summaries should address your own case, combatting the rebuttals your opponents put on your case. You don’t need to necessarily respond to every response, but rather just respond to every response on the contentions you are pushing through summary and final focus. I hate when teams blindly extend through ink, so make sure to address relevant responses. In addition, don’t silent extend args into FF, if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round it has to be in summary and FF. Case turns have to be talked about in summary to be extended into FF. At the same time, I still evaluate unextended defensive responses at the end of the round, but if there is an important response, for clarity’s sake please try to extend it or I may forget it.
Secondly, I don’t believe in tabula rasa in debate rounds. If a response or argument doesn’t make sense to me, I’m just not going to evaluate it. It’s on you to explain your responses and arguments well and make sure they are relevant.
Thirdly, while I’m a big proponent of rebuttal overviews, tell me where to flow it. It’s also important to distinguish offense from defense. Defensive arguments are not a reason to vote for you, but rather lessen the reason to vote for the other team. Try to focus on offensive args in the FF.
Fourthly, for crossfires, I would say keep them clean, but that usually never happens. Instead, try to entertain me instead of pissing me off. Witty crossfires are an easy way too earn an instant 30 speaks (but not required by any means!). Moreover, important concessions in crossfire should be explained in speeches, I’m not flowing crossfire. Also, please please please don't talk to your partner during crossfire, that's a surefire way to lose speaks!
Fifthly, in terms of speaker points, just being entertaining and in general “a good debater” is the easiest way to earn high speaks. Be confident, know what you’re talking about, explain things well, and you’re good to go. Crossfire honestly influences my perception of speaks a lot, so if you get destroyed in a crossfire – don’t expect high speaker points. In addition, while I don’t want you to kiss up, being just generally nice and kind is a good way to inflate your speaks. Also I’m not going to penalize you for cutting your speeches short, but you should typically talk for the whole time unless you are winning so hard there’s nothing more to say, which rarely happens.
Sixthly, I heavily value warrant analysis. People throw around empirics a bunch in public forum, not explaining the warrants behind them. Winning the warrant debate is more important than winning the impact debate. At the same time, you still need to pair impacts to your warrants, just pushing the warrant isn’t enough.
Lastly but most importantly, impact framing is key. If you don’t tell me which arguments are more important I’m just going to arbitrarily choose. Framing which impacts and which arguments are more crucial is the most helpful thing in deciding my ballot.
p.s. if you're here from Emaad's paradigm, god help you. He'll give you 30 speaks if you give a minute of prep time to your opponent. Good luck, have fun with the judge screw :)
Brenda Jennings Paradigm
Isabelle Jimenez Paradigm
Courtney Jones Paradigm
Alejandro Kau Paradigm
Negesty Kebede Paradigm
Abhinav Ketineni Paradigm
weighing is useful
Paul La Plante Paradigm
David Leong Paradigm
David Leong Paradigm
Billy Leung Paradigm
Ping Li Paradigm
Michael Loscavio Paradigm
Mafara MAFARA Paradigm
All four years of highschool I competed in speech and debate competitions. For those four years I was at Green Valley Highschool. I've done all four debates, but spent the most time in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I will follow the flow of the round and will likely ask to see your cases after the round has ended (if copies are not shared before the round begins). Disrespect and live communication (i.e. texting and using the internet) will not be tolerated. Keep debates on definitions to a minimum. If the topic warrants this being a debate on morals, only use data if your making a point on something moral. Leave metadebate behind if it doesn't belong here. If you can turn your opponent's arguments and data to fit your own case, do it; a turned argument is better than a defeated one. Cross examination will not be flowed, and do not bring up points or make arguments during it. Cross examination should be used to, for lack of a better term, "corner your opponents." If something important is said during cross examination, being it up in the next speech or lose it forever. I also believe that if you destroy your opponent's V and VC (or other debate equivalent) then they have no case, even if their argumentation and data is better. Low point wins exist, but nobody wants that. Spread and you may find trouble, for while I want this to be a full and exciting debate, I also want to be able to understand it properly. Finally, time limits will be strictly enforced. Get your points out quickly and efficiently. As they say in my homerift, GL;HF.
When it comes to speech events, I like the speeches that keep me engaged at all times and manage to effectively make me think. I have the most experience in Domestic Extemporaneous speaking and some time working with Duo Interpretation and Original Oratory. Speeches barely more than a minute and 30 seconds will most likely be ranked toward the bottom of the round, and make sure not to go more than 30 seconds over. All scripts should be memorized and using cheat sheets (or props for this matter) will earn you a place at the bottom of the round. Most importantly, have fun and enjoy yourself. The more comfortable you are delivering your speech, the more comfortable I will be listening/watching you perform it. While this does not mean that you should be informal, it does mean that you should not be as strict in your presentation as a general would be to the masses about an insurgency plan gone wrong. And, as they say in my homerift, GL;HF.
Trimaan Malik Paradigm
My name is Trimaan Malik. I debated LD, PF, and Congress in high school. I was a policy debater for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
I am a pretty straightforward and easygoing judge. I care more about what you are saying than how well you speak. I look for a clear and concise road-map so everyone in the debate understands the arguments.
Please make sure you flow in policy. It is not a good sign when you respond to an argument that was not said in the round, but you saw it on the speech doc.
In PF debaters should have evidence to back up their claims. Even if they make amazing arguments their speeches hold no merit without evidence. They have to remain topical. PF is not the place to provide an "alternative". Just focus on the topic and you will be fine!
For LD I look for the value/value criterion and framework to see if it really applies to your arguments. I am not too strict about evidence in LD, but I am more of a traditional judge and I like to have analysis in the round. It is good to hear a piece of evidence, but I want to know how it applies to your arguments. It seems that "progressive" LD has become the meta for some. Although I prefer classic LD debate, as a judge it is my responsibility to treat every round fairly regardless of my preferences but I prefer no spreading during the debates.
Most importantly, show respect to your opponent(s). I want to make sure the environment is comfortable for everyone so nobody feels like they were screwed over.
email@example.com Maloney Paradigm
Annie Marple Paradigm
Polina Martin Paradigm
Holden Martinson Paradigm
If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.
I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.
While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.
In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.
Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.
If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.
FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.
Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.
When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.
Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.
Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks
-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"
-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock
-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"
Mary McInturff Paradigm
Franz Mcclure Paradigm
Jenifer Mendez Paradigm
Doug Miller Paradigm
Currently a law student + Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS)
Formerly Assistant Coach at Lake Highland (FL), and Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO)
Coached for 15 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF.
Scroll down for Policy Paradigm
Public Forum Paradigm
- If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary.
- Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to an utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
- Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case.
- No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
- Make sure you evidence really says what you say it does.
1. Summary extension
If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. In fact, that especially includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.
2. Offense defense
Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to an utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.
3. Narrow the final focus
It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.
4. No new cards in 2nd summary
I do not believe that if 2nd rebuttal fails to answer all the 1st rebuttal’s arguments, that they have dropped their case. Answering 1st rebuttal arguments for the first time in 2nd summary is fine, with one major exception. If you need to read new cards to answer the 1st rebuttal arguments, those new cards need to be read in 2nd rebuttal, not 2nd summary. New cross-applications of existing arguments are OK, but any new cards need to be read in rebuttal. Just like with extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary, I won’t evaluate any of those new carded responses, and your speaker points will take a hit.
I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. That being said, debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it.
I believe that there are several highly abusive forms of advocacy that have appeared recently that are very bad for PF, and just bad debate in general. I welcome a discussion of those practices in round, and believe that the best way to stamp them out is for teams to make those abuses voting issues in rounds. I won’t vote on these issues unless the objections are raised and effectively argued in-round (e.g. impacted, extended in all the necessary speeches, etc). but I have strong leanings that make me VERY receptive to several theory arguments.
Fiat – Until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. Thus, if teams want to read a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that are unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat.”
Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-pronged fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.
6. Arguments in Crossfire
If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech.
7. Evidence availability
If you read any evidence, have the card available to hand over. Immediately (within reason, of course). Constructives should have their cards ready to hand over, in order, (probably even in the same document) because you know someone is going to ask for them. And having a bunch of PDF’s that you have to Command-F is not having your cards available. That is just lazy debating. Cut a card like a real debater. If you don’t know what that means, look it up. If you are reading this deep into a judge paradigm, it means you’re a big kid now. Act like it. As far as time is concerned, taking 10 minutes to find a card is inexcusable. At some point, I will just say you can’t find it, and and tell you to move on. This is becoming enough of a problem that I’m considering starting a running clock for “evidence hunting time.” I’m not there yet, but this practice really annoys me (and ALL judges), and needs to be stopped. If you can’t find the card you read in a reasonable amount of time, “Just drop it off the flow,” is not a sufficient recourse. In my mind, that is tantamount to evidence fabrication. If it happens once, I will be annoyed and chastise you after the round, but I’ll likely grudgingly give you the benefit of the doubt. If it happens multiple times, I am likely to be persuaded should the opposing team make such offenses a well-warranted and properly extended theory voting issue in the round.
8. Evidence Quality
I will, on occasion, ask to see key pieces of evidence at the end of the round as I make my decision. If I do ask for cards, and the text of the evidence you provide me doesn't match up with the argument you make in-round (e.g. eggregious power-tagging, taking out of context, etc - basically, more than what I perceive to be an honest mistake), I reserve the right to penalize the team providing the evidence, even if the opposing team does not bring up the quality of the card in question as an issue in the round. Best case for the offending party: I will simply not evaluate the evidence in question and decide the round as though that card has been redacted from the debate, leaving the argument with the same functional weight as an unsupported analytic. Worst case: If I see multiple offenses in the round, see a particularly eggregious offense, or have seen and commented on the team committing the same kind of offense in previous rounds I've judged, I may choose to drop the team solely on evidence quality. This is the one and only form of judge intervention I will engage in, as I have increasingly seen far too many teams get by functionally fabricating evidence and getting away with it because there is simply not enough time for opponents to question each and every card. Someone needs to serve as a check on such practices, and I believe judges should have a hand in that service. Rest assured, I will not decide a round in such fashion often, or without serious cause. I understand the serious ramifications of judges deciding rounds arbitrarially. If I do have a serious enough issue with your evidence to warrant some sort of intervention (which, again, is still very rare for me), I will be very clear in my RFD what the issue was, and how it factored into my decision, so that students can learn to not make the same mistakes again.
9. Evidence citations
You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.
10. Speaker points
My reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.
11. "What's your methodology?"
Asking “What’s the methodology of your study” is a huge pet peeve of mine. Nails on a chalkboard bad. It’s a lazy way of saying, “I don’t really have an answer to this, so I’m just going to ask a bunch of questions about it and hope that clouds the debate enough to make it go away.” Questions about a card / study without evidence/warrants supporting the opposite aren’t arguments against it. They are just tricks debaters who got out-researched use to cover up that they got out-researched. In short, they are defensive only, and are only offensive if there are warrants / evidence as to why the opposite conclusion is true.
12. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic
Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I will probably have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that may be useful.
Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Yeah, that's intentional. If you can't fugure out the answer to that quesiton from the numerous comments above, then you really are beyond help. But basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed, you debate god, you. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down there a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity.
I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 15+ years. I am currently a law student + Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and previously was head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in FL, and The Pembroke Hill School in MO.
Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better teams in the past read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.
I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.
If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceeded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR, If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.
Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly. All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.
Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.
I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through case in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.
I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.
Aaliyah Mitchell Paradigm
Ruva Nasungwi Paradigm
Rose Nordberg Paradigm
Debated policy in highschool for 2 years, and competed in the college circuit for one year at UNLV.
While find straight up arguments to be more persuasive, i'm willing to listen and vote on the K as well, as long as there is a clear, thoroughly explained alt. Having a net ben to your K works wonders. I will not flow through arguments for you, please extend and clearly sign post, it will benefit you greatly with me.
I tend to vote on:
I will not be offended if you want to spend some time in your rebuttal writing my ballot for me. Please tell me why you win the debate, make it obnoxiously clear to me who i'm going to vote for.
Let's have fun! :>
Austin Ogden Paradigm
Paulette Ortiz Paradigm
Tracy Palmer Paradigm
I am a parent judge, but I have been judging the National Circuit PF for five years and judged 600+ rounds (including TOC semifinals). I am scientist so if you are making science arguments please make sure you understand the science..
How to win my ballot
- Speak clearly
- Extend arguments- not cards
- Focus the debate to what you are winning
- Keep theory reserved for actual abuse
- Keep Ks in policy
- Keep aliens and zombies for bad movies and out of debate
- Summary in line with final focus
- Be polite
- Have your evidence ready (you have 1 minute)
How to get good speaks
- Make good arguments
- Make good choices
- Don't yell
- Don't argue with me
- Arguing with me after the round- I GIVE SPEAKS AFTER I GIVE MY RFD FOR THIS REASON
Renee Pedroza Paradigm
Erik Perez Paradigm
hope ur good at adapting! \(uWu)/
Nicholas Petsas Paradigm
- State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
- Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
- Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college.
- Presently, I am a government healthcare consulting informatics associate for Mercer and I coach my high school alma mater in PF.
What I would want changed in the status quo:
- I would like for teams to have the ability to give their opponants evidence effortlessly. PF is in a time crisis where debates go longer than they should.
- Back in the day (which wasn't that long ago FYI) we used expandos and could easily hand over evidence. you could easily just put the full shpeal on your computer in a file so if they ask for the "methodology" you can hand them over the full file.
- why we live in a world where we dont do this is beyond me but since this is just a wish please move on to the next portion which actually matters for your debate:
What I expect/prefer:
- In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is recieved.
- The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something completely unrelated to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponents arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
- As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
- I do not flow CX. that is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponants and seek out contradictions in their line of arguementation. If you give a speech the whole time then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
- I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important arguement comes down to economic impacts and their opponants most important arguement is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
- I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguements then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
- If you speak pretty you will get more speaker points and that is literally it. In good debates I do not even get a chance to look up at the debaters.
- Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow or grouping arguements.
- If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" at the end when your opponents havent attacked it yet then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
- I do not want to shake your hand after the round.
Les Phillips Paradigm
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary. Ask me questions!
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)
I do not demand that the second speaking rebuttal or any summary speech do anything in particular. If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.
NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I also expect debaters to be able to state/defend the qualifications of every single piece of evidence they use. Though it is not the explicit NSDA standard, I believe that quals should be read out loud. I will bristle and/or throw my pen if I hear "according to Princeton." Evidence standards in PF are improving, but they are still not good. You will not get good points if you do not meet these standards.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. "Helps The Economy" is to impacts as "according to Princeton" is to cites. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM
For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a dcebater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.
Pittman III Pittman III Paradigm
Ilisha Reed Paradigm
Melanie Rhineer Paradigm
Casey Rosenberg Paradigm
Hey, I’m Casey. I did speech all four years of high school and qualified to Nationals all four years in interpretation events. If it is not interp that you are competing in, do not fret, I am familiar with the other speech events and have been coaching speech for the last five years. Just have fun!
Jessica Roybal Paradigm
Jazmin Ruelas Paradigm
Brett Rydalch Paradigm
“This forum, like all public forums, is a waste of time”
- Ron Swanson (JK, I just love Ron.)
- Read good evidence and make sure I can understand the card citation. Its not real if I can't hear where its from.
- Defense is overvalued
- Weighing, indights and offense are undervalued
Things I enjoy seeing in round:
- Turns > Link debates
- Empirics and quantifiable impacts.
- Lots of evidence
- Risky/Off-the-wall arguments… as long as they still make sense.
- Well-weighed arguments extended through the Final Focus, even if that means you’re kicking out of others. Write my ballot for me. Some of the best teams I’ve seen lose and/or drop every argument but one, and still win the round.
- Use Cross well. Make it constructive. Being funny and/or sassy never hurts, either.
- Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.
- Give me clear voters. Tell me why I should vote for you in your Summary/FF.
Things I DO NOT like:
- Improperly citing evidence.
- People that lie in the 2nd FF
- Off-time roadmaps. The only time to give one is if I need a new piece of flow-paper because you’re going off-case, or if you’re doing something otherwise out of the ordinary.
- Miscutting/manipulating evidence
- When you say an author and I can't understand. Don't be like..."Blah, 17 says..."
- Using rhetoric claims about discrimination and abuse or anything. Be careful about making blatant statements about these topics that could across as offensive.
- I pretty much hate framework. Most PF teams provide a framework and then really don't work within it or it becomes a framework debate. I DO NOT, REALLY DON'T, LIKE SERIOUSLY HATE a 45 min debate on framework and the case does not adhere to the framework you present. Yes...you all run C/B Analysis for 99% of everything and most of you don't understand anything about economics or actually present a valid C/B Analysis then just don't waste our time. Let's just agree that the flow is king and you need to prove stuff. Lets just agree there is one framework..Impact Calc...I will weigh who has the better impacts. Enough said.
Don’t do these things in front of me.
Speed: I like speed up to like 325 wpm. If you go really really slowly I might get bored and start drawing pictures of butterflies and flowers on my flow, so speed is prob in your best interest. Slow down on tags and authors if you’re really fast.
Other technical things:
- I’ll only evaluate things that are in both Summary and FF.
- I don’t flow crossex, but you should refer to things that happened in cross in your next speech. I don't care how you do it or even if you do it. Please don't try to be sneaky and assume you can stare at me during cross and think you can get another speech in. Naw, I'm good and don't care what you have to say. I will probably be on my phone, computer or watching Netflix or something.
I coach PF.
I life PF.
I work with NSDA in PF.
PF is good.
Erionne Ryles Paradigm
Gabriel San Martin Paradigm
Charles Schletzbaum Paradigm
Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.
St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone
Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)
Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
In all events: Assume if the resolution is true, then I'm voting aff. If it is not proven, then I'm voting neg, and unless told explicitly otherwise or the gymnastically twisted resolutions, tie goes against "taking an action" (presumption/perceived aff burden to prove the res).
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.
Part of what you should know about any of the events
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX and in all events with only exception in PF grand.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, as I have seen a bizarre one once, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)
I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)
Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.
If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.
I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.
Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX and in all events with only exception in PF grand.
Please don't diss my event.
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin america topic.
In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)
I will freely vote on T if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.
I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)
SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.
I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.
LD (p.s. Sep/oct 2016 pronounce NEW-CLEE-ERR *sigh*)
I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event I judge. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments. It didn't work for the racism k kids in policy in the movie resolved, and drop the debater because fairness is a voter won't work either in my round (for example)
-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs
- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)
IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW.....
Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.
PLANS IN LD
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.
EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.
If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.
I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.
GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah
Jammie Schletzbaum Paradigm
I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.
For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.
Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not.
I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.
Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.
I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.
Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.
Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials.
I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)
Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.
Suzie Schmid Paradigm
I will listen to anything, very much tabula rosa, but if there are reasons why I should abandon this paradigm I will listen to it. Good with any line of argumentation, K, T, Policy, anything! I enjoy the game of debate but I also respect it as a social justice platform. I just want to see fun, enjoyable, competitive, and enthusiastic debate, whatever that looks like for you, I'm happy with-- so long as it is not exclusive or bigoted in anyway. There are some arguments that I won't listen to, that being said, I don't expect to hear them. Otherwise, I try and give really clear nonverbals, and will answer any questions at any time. I am of the belief that while debate is a game, it is an enriching and educational game, so please ask! I enjoy and hold to the line by line as the most objective way to evaluate the round, but that is really up to y'all to do, have a clear weighing mechanism for me to use, compare both worlds, impact framing, impact calc, whatever floats your boat. In more philosophical arguments, I still need a way in which that is competitive with a less philosophical framework, just make it really clear why one outweighs. Signposting is really helpful in all forms of debate, please do it!
This little paragraph doesn't matter--be your own champion! :)
Stephanie Shelton Paradigm
***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***
Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.
I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years
***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***
I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.
Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.
I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round
Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.
I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg
I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.
Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.
Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.
Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)
Good Trump impressions +1.0
Bad Trump impressions -2.0
Bradley Sketchley Paradigm
Eneliko Smith Paradigm
Samuel Stangl Paradigm
Jada Stinnett Paradigm
Last Updated: 10/23/19 for Meadows
Conflicts: Palo Verde HS, Woodlands HS, University HS, UNLV
I would like to be on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Number of Rounds I judged this year (HSPD): 6
Number of Rounds I judged this year (CPD): 8
*Over all Ideas that I have about debate*
I like all styles of debate.
I believe that debate is a fun game we play.
Why we play the game is different for everyone.
I believe that everyone should have fun playing it.
This is especially true for novice debate. I think sometimes we forget we all had a first day.
What this means is that I will make it a priority to keep the spaces I'm involved in safe.
I will acknowledge the material implications of some bodies in certain spaces, so I will not police the debate space or conform to respectability politics of ANY tournament.
I will try my best to make this space accessible for you. Let me know what I can do (this can include an email before the round).
Technical debate is good debate.
A true argument can beat a bunch of silly arguments.
An Argument is a claim with a warrant. I will only flow claims with warrants.
I will not listen to impact turns of oppression. I will stop the round and leave. Your speaker points will reflect this.
Don't use slurs outside of your social location. I will stop the round and leave. Your speaker points will reflect this.
I don't want to judge a debate based off of what happened outside of the round. It becomes really awkward for everyone. And I can't adequately attest these truth claims. Just don't do it. Please.
I flow on paper- you will never be "too fast", you might be unclear.
I will try to adjust my positioning in the room- like moving closer, before I ask you to become clearer. So don't get worried if you see me moving my seat.
Spreading is a strategy used to create Layers to an argument in a small amount of time. If you are just fast without adding dimension to your argument then you are dong it wrong and should stop.
I am very expressive, you can tell if I like your argument or if you are winning an argument.
This is an experience for me just as much as it is for you so I like to feel involved in the space.
I understand adapting to judges, but from personal experience you can win in front of any critic doing what you do best.
I am open to adjusting my judging style/practice in nearly anyway that is asked of me.
I will not be offended if you ask me about my familiarity with topic specific acronyms/specific arguments. PLEASE DO SO. I want to know what you're talking about.
AFF: You should be "topical", what that means is up for debate. Does that mean in the direction of the topic? Does that mean USFG action? IDK you tell me. But criticizing the "norms" of debate without relation to the topic is iffy for me and in my opinion a negative argument. If you have a justification for it go ahead because I will be evaluating the debate based off my flow anyway, but I am sympathetic to T/Framework Arguments. But don't be discouraged I have read/do read/coach teams to read "non-topical" affirmatives and understand the strategic choice behind doing so. That non-topical affirmative MUST do something.
The status squo is always an option. Please don't forget the art of case debate. This goes beyond just impact defense. Don't be afraid for a good Impact Turn debate I'm all for a warming good, econ decline good, bio D loss good, ect debate.
I wholeheartedly believe that you can say the state can do a particular policy action, and that single instance is good for x amount of people, without defending the other terrible shit the state has done. Example, Welfare is probably a good thing. Yes there is problems with who gets it, but a world with out it is probably worse. I also believe that wiki disclosures is good defense against predictability claims. I also believe that some teams don't even make an attempt at engagement and some framework shells are written with the intent to never have k debates exist. That's probably a fucked up thing to defend. Don't let that be you. Nonetheless, T debates are dope. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. It will never be a reverse voter. It will never be genocide. You have to have a TVA. Your standards need to be impacted out or else they are just internal links and idk what to do with that. I will not vote on potential abuse. I want to see the blood on the flow. Where did they make the game unfair for you. I think the more specific the evidence/examples the better.
Impact framing and comparisons are major key. I'm cool with Generics DA's as long as your links are baller, but the more unique the DA the better. I believe in a 1% risk of a link. I also believe in a 0% risk of an impact.
I'm all for a good counterplan. 2nc counterplans are cool. 2nc amendments are cool. For me to vote on a CP you need to be super good on the case debate and differentiating the perm. Be clear on the CP text so I can flow it and also establish competition and better evaluate the argument. The states counter plan is definitely a legitimate strategy and should be protected at all cost.
I'm most familiar with argumentation in critical race theory, gender and sexuality args and identity/performance based arguments but this doesn't mean I won't listen to what you have to say if those things aren't your jazz. Reading is Fundamental. I read a lot of debate related jazz so I will most likely know what you are talking about. I expect college debaters to also be well read. My patience increases with hs debaters learning about different arguments, none the less you should still be reading. I cannot stress this enough. Reading is imperative. My hs kids have taken a liking to old french dudes so I have tried by best as an educator to familiarize myself with that field of literature to be a better coach. I will give you that same respect as an adjudicator if I don't understand your criticism. I believe engagement and contextualizing your theory with your opponents arguments gets you a long way. Explain what the alt does. I think far too often this explanation is missing from the debate. I don't believe in just voting on links (I say this, but as I think about it you can go for links as disads to the case...idk convince me). You have to find a way to resolve those for me. Also "root cause" arguments are not links, they are just alt solvency evidence.
I don't believe in Fem IR criticisms or other white fem bullshit.
Don't read theory args as a time skew. The aff gets a perm unless you say why. Conditionality: The neg can do whatever they want as long as the positions don't contradict, and they make a decision in the 2nr. I will not judge kick for you. You need to make a decision. Not here for cheap shots. I really don't want to have to judge a theory debate but I understand abuse and am willing to vote on it. If you plan on going for a theory argument, a substantial amount of time needs to be spent on it in the rebuttal. SPEC arguments are the worst thing to happen to debate and I will buy anything the 2a says if its remotely responsive. SPEC arguments are also the shittiest thing to lose on and I will vote on it if asked in cross x to spec something reasonable and you are a dick about it. As said before, I don't like performative contradictions. This also just applies to the rounds that i'm in. I don't care that the person reading framework against you also reads a k aff. It's a game. they picked a strategy that's going to win them the game.
Is binding. Is a speech. I'll write notes during this time. Please Answer questions. Don't be sketchy, I'll know it. Don't be afraid to point out if your opponents are being sketchy.
Do not Fabricate evidence. It's inexcusable. Do not clip cards. its inexcusable.
Challenges of card clipping will result in stopping the debate if material evidence is provided that proves beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind that card clipping has occurred. the offending team will receive a loss and the offending speaker will receive 0 speaker points. however if i conclude that the speaker is not guilty of clipping cards the challenging team will receive a loss and both challenging speakers will receive 0 speaker points.
***clipping cards is not a slurring of words or clack of clarity***
I'm from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the debate. Denial to share citations or disclose is a bitch move. Prepared debate is good debate. Don't get this confused with breaking new, that's all fine.
MY TIME IS THE RIGHT TIME AND THE ONLY TIME THAT MATTERS. I don't count flashing or emailing as prep. Flex prep is not a thing(you cannot use cross-x as prep or time to give another speech). Speak in your assigned time slots (interpret this vaguely. It just means 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. idc the order) unless for some performative or ethical reason that you can't (For example, if both debaters speak during the 1AC cool. There was a reason for it. Probably performative. In the rebuttal to continue the performance? Cool. Have a debater take over the line by line? Not Cool. This is a clear shift in the competitive aspect and nature of the game. Unless for some reason a debater disappears/goes missing...why would this happen? shit idk, but unusual things happen all the time)
Clarification questions during prep is okay. But don't try to make "a point". If you happen to be a team on the receiving end of someone trying to tear down your argument during prep, please refuse to answer.
I'll hook everyone up with speaks #PointFairy
I understand the joy of speaker awards and I will do my best to help y'all out.
I evaluate speaks of by delivery>argument choice. the team with the better Argument choice will most likely win win the round.
You'll get a 30 if you are just baller, or make me laugh uncontrollably. (I enjoy witty jokes, and I'm a big sports fan if that helps you come up with material)
+0.2 if you make a joke about me
+0.3 for every KD joke
(I haven't made up my mind if I will put a cap on jokes or not, so be a comedian at the risk of knowing you might not be rewarded for all the jokes)
when making analytical arguments I would advise going for the easiest pen to paper phrasing
How I make my Decisions:
I use the burden of rejoinder frame to structure how I evaluate debates.
I hold a strict line with new arguments in the rebuttals so a majority of my time will be lining up arguments.
In clash debates the easiest framing for me is whats most educational and best for the community.
I dislike students who try to post round. This has only happened to me twice. None the less I will not tolerate it. I am also willing to admit that I am wrong. But that will not change my decision. If the understanding that I get form your argument happens in a post round and not in a debate, I cannot reward you for communicating your point late in the game. This is a communication activity and if something didn't reach my flow like how you intended there isn't much I can do but listen and process to the best of my ability. If you think I made the wrong decision that's fine and you are completely entitled to feel that way. It does not change the fact that you loss.
Mics/Things you might wanna know about me:
I am black, and Queer.
I have a very personal relationship to the college topic
You all can call me Jada you don't have to say judge
I was a 2n
I'm a Dog Mom
I have a real pet peeve with what is considered violence in debate
I don’t fuck with people who lie about sexual assault
You can insert re highlighting- you don't have to reread the card
If you wanna talk about college debate I'm here(I debated for UNLV) or I can get you in touch with someone from a program you are interested in.
Quotes from People in The Community about me:
"Super smart and a great person all around" Allego Wang
"Incredibly intelligent + really good at explaining difficult concepts" Ali saffieddine
"Their ability to compartmentalize argumentation and overall communication skills are ones I've always aspired to have and continue to grow from simple conversations I have with them. Jada's ability to empathize with students and find the grammar to communicate in ways to accommodate students needs and comprehension skills is one of the many talented characteristics they have. They will really be personal to you and your needs, with flares of individual organic wisdom they've learned over the years. They will not just lecture you. They will help you on your path to education/understanding difficult literature bases by shining light at your strengths and guiding you to find solutions to your weaknesses. Legit, Jada is one of the most influential person I've been blessed to come across" Yumasie Hellebuick
"You're the 50 cent of this community" -Chris Randall
"Jada is the love of my life" - Caitlin Walrath
"I told ppl to pref u just cuz you’re not afraid to stare a k team down and say “yea I voted on nuke war outweighs” with a smile ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" -Ari Davidson
"Jada makes the best memes" JV Soccer Captain and my Teammate Dan Bannister
These are my jams at the moment do with that what you will:
Maria Valenzano Paradigm
Arie Walker Paradigm
As a coms judge I am looking for a classic/traditional debate where you are supporting or negating the resolution with your value criterion. I appreciate respectful clash and will attempt to flow. I am okay with moderate speed. I understand that LD is morals based but I am looking for empirical impacts weighed under your value and criterion.
Curtis Wardle Paradigm
TLDR: debate however you would like in front of me. I'll evaluate whatever you give me to the best of my ability.
Tech beats truth in front of me every time. I don't care if the T was frivolous, I'll drop the most generic aff in the world if they lose the T flow.
Speed: 6. If you aren't clear, then it makes my job infinitely harder. If you spread through the standards on T, Theory, and other analytic arguments, I won't feel guilty if it doesn't make it onto the flow. I can only evaluate what I was able to flow.
T: Go for it
Performance: Go for it.
Non Topical affs
I am open to new uses of time, performance, and affs that are not topical. However, I feel it is the burden of the affirmative to provide solid framework telling me to evaluate the round differently than if I were a traditional policymaker.
Topicality I'll be honest here. As aff, I was frequently non topical and as neg I read T all of the time. I am okay with T hacks, and I won't punish an aff outright so long as they can provide ample reason why their aff would be preferrable to the topic. I will default to competing interps on T debates generally.
Spec args I actually thing it's pretty valuable. I would rather see a spec arg than an agent CP.
Nebel T: You can read it, but its a vertical battle to me. Whole res is stupid. I would much rather see infinite affs on the wiki than listen to an infinite amount of PICs. Don't tell me you couldn't read anything against the aff if you're compotent. Force them to defend generics, read a K, go for an abusive CP. I don't really care, but the notion that negs should get infinite access to DA and PIC ground because they aren't feeling like doing prep work doesn't fly for me. You didn't have 15 minutes before the round to prep out your opponent, you had infinite time to prep out conceivable positions.
Debate authors: this is my pet peeve. Debate people are great for advice at camp, they're not gods on the T flow. Cut it out. "Don't use me in round," Steve Knell, 2015
I diverge from most policy judges in that I actually enjoy theory. However I have some specifics.
1. If you make me vote for disclosure theory, I'll hate you
2. Condo is legit, severance is fine. Agent, process, and inherency cps are are legit theory violations.
I don't really feel like I should have to put a section in here for K's but, here we go. I was a K hack that read Queer Theory/Ableism all of senior year. I believe that the K is a valid argument, and provides great (if not real world value,) intellectual value. I am familiar with queer, fem, and ableism literature as well as biopower. If you choose to read other identity critiques or something that isn't a "generic K," I may call for evidence. I will evaluate arguments I am unfamiliar with to the best of my ability.
Most CPs are totally able to be permed. I require debaters explain how the permutation is functional first, and evaluate whether or not the perm harms the integrity of the kritik if that becomes relevant. I am happy to grant perms, but if you do not tell me how the perm would function, I will most likely conclude neg.
Honestly, disads are my least favorite arguments. If you want me to vote for it, you're best going for a CP/DA strategy.
Other things about me
- Kanye, Migos, Uzi, and Yachty quotes will grant extra speaks
- Drake references are minus points
- Sass is welcome. Being an asshole is frowned upon.
Lukas Werle Paradigm
Kassie Wong Paradigm
Natthinee Wongsavit Paradigm
Misti Yang Paradigm
arianna artiga Paradigm
isis guerrero Paradigm
shelby hedges Paradigm
amber jones Paradigm
University of Nevada, Las Vegas | Foothill High School
I have been on UNLV's policy debate team for two years.
I have four years of experience in public forum from high school.
Please include me on the email chain
I am willing to evaluate any arguments that you make, as long as you explain and execute it well. There is no need to change your arguments to something you think I like or will vote on, just give me the best debate you can, using your best arguments, and you will be fine. This is my first year judging policy so my paradigm is still a work in progress.
I will attempt to be as neutral as possible and evaluate the arguments presented in the debate independent of my own opinions. Keep in mind that debate is facilitated by fiat, the mutual agreement that we will discuss whether or not the plan should be done.
Negative strategy – I believe in preserving maximum strategic and theoretical flexibility for negative teams. Contradicting arguments early on in the debate are fine as long as it is narrowed down in the negative block and the 2NR is consistent. Though too many contradicting arguments (3+) will make me more sympathetic to the affirmative.
Affirmative strategy - A good 1AR should attempt to make the 2NR's job difficult by reading plenty of evidence, covering, and always using offense. For the 1AR and 2AR I think it is important to EXTEND WARRANTS inside your evidence. You should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Just saying “extend our Johnson ’12 card,” does not count as extending the evidence!
Aff- I am open to critical affirmatives that have a relationship to the topic. I have a difficult time voting on an affirmative without a relationship to the topic (as articulated in the round). I will not vote on T/FW just because it was read, it is the burden of the negative to prove to me why that affirmative is not topical or why it shouldn't be run in debate.
Negative critical arguments: I am willing to vote on critical arguments, as long as it is well explained and has specific links to the aff. Your Kritik should have an alt and impact that is explained by the negative, I am highly unlikely to vote negative if you do not extend the alt. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but I have had experience with a wide variety. Good alt explanation can resolve any lack of knowledge I have. The affirmative should always permutate critical arguments, and explain how the permutation functions.
CPs— I am fine with counterplans, but prefer they have some sort of solvency advocate as well as a net benefit. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan.
Disadvantages- Needs to be as specific as possible to the aff and the link story should make sense. Make sure to explain how the aff links to the disad and how it triggers the impact.
Topicality- All for it, I feel that it is a very strategic argument to be made in debate. Needs to be well articulated with both sides submitting competing interpretations. T arguments should be extremely structured and organized to make it easier for me to see why this is a voting issue.
Speaker Points- You should be clear and able to explain your arguments well. I enjoy jokes and clever analogies that are relevant to the round and arguments being made.
Few other things-
- Do not steal prep!!!! I do not take time for sending out the document, but when the team that took prep calls time, everyone else should pause until the speech is handed over and begins.
- Only one person should be speaking per speech, unless it is a performative necessity or an accessibility issue in which case that should be made clear during the debate.
- Flow! If you are not flowing I notice and it probably reflects in the quality of your speeches, in particular the line by line debate.
- Debate should be fun; it is a game so be nice and courteous to everyone involved.
If you would like something explained further, please feel free to ask me some questions before the round.