King Round Robin

2018 — Houston, TX/US

Tosin Agboola Paradigm

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

Also, I flow the best on paper, but I'm a bit irresponsible, so I might not have paper and a pen all the time. If you have extra paper and a pen, then you'd help me adjudicate the debate a lot easier. Otherwise, I'd have to flow on my laptop, which means I'll be slightly more likely to miss an argument. I'll do my best to have paper and pen, but like I said I'm a bit irresponsible.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.


UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Clement Agho-Otoghile Paradigm

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Chris Castillo Paradigm

I am the LD coach at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx. I've been involved in debate since the year 2000. I judge a lot. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo at gmail dot com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments. D

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Abbey Chapman Paradigm

I coach @ Harker. Please start an email chain before the round - aacchapman@g.ucla.edu

here are some thoughts i have:

0) if the 2nr is split that is rarely a great sign for speaker points

1) i do not think debates where the affirmative does not clarify until the 1ar whether they operate under comparative worlds or truth testing are productive - i will assume a comparative worlds paradigm unless the 1ac justifies otherwise - the 1ar cannot shift to truth-testing without an indication of that interpretive claim in the 1ac.

2) toss me on the email chain: aacchapman@g.ucla.edu

3) i am not going to vote on an impeachment impact unless you tell me how we get from a 51-49 gop senate to 67 senators voting to remove trump from office - absent that warrant, i will not grant you "impeachment proceedings remove trump from office."

4) miscellaneous, but i do not understand why the aff doesnt get perms in a method debate - never seen a compelling warrant - default assumption on my part is that the aff does and its an uphill battle to convince me otherwise


5) the phrase "evidence ethics" means something - if someone says it and their opponent clarifies "is this an evidence ethics challenge," i understand this to mean that the debate ends - whoever has made the accusation wins if i believe the evidence ethics violation is correct, they lose if i believe the accused did not commit an evidence ethics violation - i will not independently end the round if the accused does not ask for this - if they do, i am happy to - words matter and evidence ethics matters

6) slow down on theory - will say slow twice, after that it is on you if i cannot flow it - i will miss your arguments and feel very comfortable disregarding them regardless of whats in the doc.

7) please dont read false politics disads in front of me i will be angry i keep up with politics i will know if you are lying

8) i am not particularly compelled by the insistence that the negative or affirmative answer t/k first in cx or theory arguments deriving from it

9) i will not vote for a kritik i do not understand

10) i have a good ear for when clipping is occurring - if i suspect it is, i will follow along in the speech doc - if i determine i am correct, the person clipping will lose. to be very clear, this does not necessitate the opponent making a clipping accusation - i feel very comfortable making this adjudication on my own.

11) one notable contradiction in my thinking - i am very receptive to semantics bad claims on t (not into nebel t) but also pretty receptive to text of the interp/text of the rotb/plan flaw args - i generally think that when issues arise in those 3 things, they are a result of students not giving much thought to them which is a shame bc all 3 are pretty important in my view - well crafted interps, as well as cxes that isolate plan flaws/interp issues will be rewarded (this doesnt mean i like /bad/ plan flaw args.............)

12) if you suspect that i may need to look at interps/counter interps you read, those should be flashed before the speech [likely applies to perms as well]- i will not look at interps that are written down at the end of the round and will just evaluate the t debate based on what i have written on my flow.

13) given how clear it is to me that no one could flow theory as it is delivered, i am cool w debaters tossing out a "slow" at their opponents if they can't flow at top speed


just do you i guess, specifics for each event are down below


FLASHING:

this used to be an extensive set of rules please just flash well i have no patience for inefficient flashing
its not prep but if it takes more than 30 seconds it will make me angry


Practices Trigger Warnings

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

Speed

  • Clarity is important, and I’ll prompt you if need be. Slow down for tags and emphasize authors.
  • debaters blazing through a doc of analytics without pausing can only hurt them, so you should slow down on theory dumps - it's on you if i miss one of your theory blips and i'm not going to call for theory analytics except for the exact text of interps - will shout slow on theory and you should heed that advice
  • Additionally, nothing is more impressive than a slow, efficient debater winning the line-by-line against a fast opponent.
  • slow down at the very least on the tags, especially when reading dense philosophical positions
  • I'll say clear twice - speaks will be deducted after this
  • pay attention to non-verbal cues from me

Speaks

  • clarity is important for high speaks but more important than how you sound is making strategic decisions in the 2AR/NR;
  • don't go for 6 arguments if one is sufficient to win the round, don't waste time addressing all 4 levels of the debate if you're clearly winning the top 2, don't read unnecessary theory, etc.
  • give a strategic and efficient 1AR,
  • don't go top speed through the 2NR if you don't have to, a slow mastery of the line-by-line is just as if not more impressive than extending every argument on the flow.
  • If any of this is not clear enough for you, feel free to ask before rounds and I'll tell you how my speaks have been distributed at that specific tournament.

Extensions

  • a weird paradigmatic issue that shift from judge to judge - i think i'm a bit more lenient on extensions for the affirmative but there's little leniency on the 2nr - you should be clearly impacting every extension you make when you make it especially if you want me to vote on it
  • i don't think you have to extend the plan text explicitly if there is an implicit discussion of the advocacy during things like the extension of solvency, but it certainly will not hurt you
  • on the question of theory - similar to how you're expected to extend standards and voters, i do think its important to extend interpretations here, especially in a competing interps debates - i dont know that itll necessarily lose you the round if you dont, but ill be willing to listen to a 2ar story about how your standards arent explicitly impacted back to an interp - keep that in mind
  • dont re-read your ac or nc taglines for extensions - bad practice and rarely does this include an explanation of the warrants.

Arguments:

Plans/CP/DA

go for it, do it well
have a framework
perms are good, you should have explicit perm texts and you have them written down before the speech starts

will not grant you the perm if i am uncertain about the perm text bc the articulation between 1ar and 2ar was different
(perm texts should be more than "perm do both")


Kritiks

if you’re going to read a k make sure you can explain it, your explanation will always be the most important thing. K’s should have an explicit alternative, though what form that takes is up to the debater reading the criticism.
[The best form of kritik also has a topic-specific link, the more specific the better, please don’t read generic kritiks for the hell of it].
you should substantively engage kritiks when answering them, reading a lot of non-responsive arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped is a bad strategy
ask questions if anything is unclear
i really dont understand baudrillard in debate rounds i have tried and i just cant wrap my head around it feel free to try to be the one to change that but it is... an uphill battle

Performance

do w/e, i am here for it if you justify it

Skep/permissibility/all your tricky args

i'm not the judge for it

Presumption

i will presume negative if they defend the status quo - if they read a cp or a kritik, then presumption shifts to the affirmative
speech times do not change this
lol

Theory

  • I default to theory as a question of competing interpretations though I can be persuaded otherwise as long as you clearly warrant/impact out your arguments (this probably means im down with the RVI on c.i. but im very skeptical of the rvi on reasonability (i.e. I assume counter-interps are offensive unless you justify why they're not) )
  • I'm more than happy to listen to 6 minutes of theory in the 2nr, just do it well
  • Make sure your counter-interps are competitive/that your interps actually exclude the position you're reading them against - low threshold for semantic i meet's on poorly worded interpretations
  • Not the judge for Nebel T
  • i will likely be easily compelled by a "debaters should not bracket evidence" argument - i have grown sympathetic to this argument as abuses become increasingly egregious
  • not sure how i feel about 2ar theory but wont rule it out on face


I don’t think there is an implicit role of the ballot in the debate space, which means all debaters must be ready to justify whatever they assume the RotB is, as well as why they presume that certain arguments (theory for example) should always be evaluated as the top layer of the debate.


Any questions at all, ask before round, and above all, do what you’re most comfortable with, don’t just read something because you think I’ll enjoy it

Lucas Clarke Paradigm

Email is lucas@debatedrills.com

DebateDrills Coach: Please follow this link for more info on that

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fm-3KdzEdmA1yTUednV8kJG5HWCauPze/view?usp=sharing

Updates 2019-20

1. I will not be looking at documents until after the round. This means a couple of things for you

-Speaks are now something I care about. If I clear you 3x, you're down a full point and I'm probably no longer listening.

-You will probably speak closer to a regular pace than at your top speed - think 70%

-I flow author names and tags, but prefer you reference the authors name on extension

2. I know very little about the topic. I don't do topic research these days.

3. I am officially not smart/invested enough to care about the ins and outs of this nebel question. I think it's a dressed up predictability impact and couldn't care less beyond that.

Overview

Read basically whatever you want. You should be able to defend your opinion in front of me and your opponent should be able to reject said opinion.


If your team has decided they have a non-disclosure policy/advocate that your opponent reads your full cite before the round instead of giving them tag+first three last three you can go ahead and strike me.

Larp-1
T-1
Theory-2
K-3/4
Framework/Performance/Dense K/tricks-3 or below

General

I like speed.

I presume neg.

New in the 2 responses to spikes/args like plan flaw I'm lenient about.

Comparative Worlds>Truth Testing. Avoid the latter in front of me for the most part.

I’ll most likely hack for util in a framework debate.

Non-T affs are not the A-strat for me. Your aff is not a survival strategy and you're going to struggle to prove solvency. Not necessarily that you can’t read them but I buy T. Especially if you drop the specific net benefits and try to go big picture because that ends up being a bunch of conceded offense that nobody ever weighs against and it’s very sloppy.

My favorite round is a policy approach from the aff with neg going for something along the lines of CP/DA/K/relatively legit shell. Not altogether necessarily.

I've decided I have a high threshold for extensions. It's not that I won't grant you a shit extension and thus impact, it's that most extensions seem to leave me with no concept of the impact or how I'm framing it. This is work that I really really don't want to have to do.

Theory/T

Default Competing interps/Drop the Debater/No RVI.

I think truth>tech in certain theory debates.

Semantics always second to pragmatics: don’t go for nebel go for limits.

Reasonability brightlines are good

Do weighing. Anyone who says they can pick out individual stuff from the shell is probably lying, so big picture weighing is extremely important.

Fairness is a voter; however, if the violation is mini I’ll easily vote on the impact turns.

CX does check.

Courtney Coffman Paradigm

General Update: I haven't judged a lot of circuit LD rounds this year. I've been judging a lot of World Schools Debate. Please don't go your top speed and please slow down on tags & author names.


Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. I graduated in 2008 after debating for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NFL/NSDA, TFA). I was a "traditional" debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at Global Debate Symposium, Mean Green Workshops and Pinnacle.

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.


Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round.

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)


Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. You can consider me a 7 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I think permissibility and skep. arguments are defense and don't prefer to see them in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad when making a decision (aka don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc). I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence "argument" that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!


Travis Fife Paradigm

I coach for Harvard Westlake in Los Angeles, judge very regularly, and have competed/coached a diversity of circuits in California and Texas. You should feel comfortable debating whatever style best suits you.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

Chetan Hertzig Paradigm

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students.

If you're in high school, please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

PRACTICES I LIKE & WILL REWARD WITH HIGHER SPEAKS:

- Starting speeches slowly and building speed as you go (rather than starting at top speed)
- ENUNCIATING and INFLECTING throughout
- Speaking slower than average circuit speed
- Providing an explicit decision-calculus/voting issues
- Explicitly linking to a standard or ROB in speeches, especially rebuttals
- Telling a clear and coherent ballot story
- Weighing between your extensions and your opponent's (not just giving me two non-clashing sets of extensions)
- Reading a whole res aff that defends the topic as a principle
- Having a layered NC and responsive/specific turns off the aff
- Making topical critical arguments/reading Ks that are grounded in the topic lit
- Comparing evidence and weighing
- Giving structured speeches
- Using good word economy

PRACTICES I DISLIKE & FOR WHICH I MAY DECREASE SPEAKS:

- Using profanity in the round. I don't care what your purpose is; it's not necessary.
- Using ad homs of any kind against your opponent (e.g., commenting on their race, clothing, or practices as a debater). Find a non-personal way of making the argument.
- Reacting non-verbally when your opponent is speaking (e.g., violently shaking your head, making faces, waving your arms, etc.). It's rude, unpersuasive, and unnecessary.
- Indicting or insulting an opponent's team or coach in round (e.g., "It's no surprise [team name] is going for T this round")
- Sitting during CX and/or speeches unless you're physically unable to stand


GENERAL:

For the most part, I want to see a substantive round about the topic. My conception of what counts as topical argumentation is based on what's in the topic literature.

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds.

Theory: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will intervene against theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on theory. I will vote on theory that is actually justified (as in, you couldn't have answered the position without it, or there was something about the opponent's strategy that made it impossible for you to win without theory). Is that subjective? You bet. Is there a brightline? Probably not. Don't like this view? Don't pref me.

Framework: If you and your opponent agree on a FW, great. If not, make the FW debate relatively short (i.e., not 4 minutes of a 7 minute speech). Also, please explain the philosophical concepts you're using instead of assuming that I know them. I probably don't.

Policy Arguments: I dislike generic politics DAs and extinction impacts on topics that clearly don't link to them. If you want to run those impacts on a topic about nuclear weapons, go for it. If the topic's about compulsory voting, I'll be very receptive to good defensive answers from the aff.

Ks and Non-T Arguments: I generally prefer TOPICAL critical arguments, but I'm okay with non-topical affs if you make it super-clear why you had to be non-topical to read them. Otherwise, I tend to think a TVA will solve.

Disclosure Theory: I'll vote for this if I think it's won on the flow, but I'm not a huge fan of rounds that come down to this.

Tricks: Shut the front door! Who are you?! (In other words, "no.")

Extensions: I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

"Flex Prep": Different people use these words to mean different things. I am fine with you asking clarification questions of your opponent during prep time. I am not okay with you ending CX early and taking the rest of the time as prep time.

Other Stuff: Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. Be nice. And stand up.




To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Aimun Khan Paradigm

Yes I want to be on the email chain: khan.aimun@gmail.com. In an effort to reward clarity, I will no longer look at docs until after the round.

Tldr: I don't care what you read. I like: 1) Good argument resolution that makes me not have to think, 2) Seeing smart strategic decisions, 3) Learning something because an argument I didn't understand before was explained well. I type fast but my flow gets messy when I'm not told where to flow things.

This paradigm and this paradigm shamelessly copied my old paradigm and I more or less agree with both of them.

I graduated in 2016, debated in Texas and on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC my senior year. As a judge, my goal is to get out of the way of the debaters and let them do their thing. Since graduating I've become pretty familiar with different styles of debate, and I don't really care what you read as long as you read it well. Policy, K, phil, theory, tricks are all the same to me as long as I understand the argument resolution. I enjoy watching debaters make smart/strategic decisions much more than I care about the particular arguments being read.

I'm willing to vote on anything I understand by the end of the round if it's won (and warranted). If an argument is bad, the other debater should be able to point it out. My only exception to that rule is I will not evaluate actively problematic arguments e.g. racism good.

Things that get you good speaks (and make it more likely that I make the decision you want me to):

1) Spell it out for me. Some amount of implicit clash is inevitable, but the more I'm left to resolve on my own, the lower your speaks will be. If I'm left to resolve two arguments, I will look for the path of least intervention. Good collapses get good speaks. Tell me what to care about and what not to care about.

2) Make yourself easy to flow. Slow down on important things that you want to emphasize. It's really hard to get warrants down in blipstorms.

3) Explaining complex theories in a way that is understandable to a non-debater or someone with no background in the literature base you're reading will get you high speaks. If I learn something from the round because you explained an argument I didn’t understand well, your speaks will be great.

In short, the easier you make it to evaluate the round the better your speaks will be.

Other things that affect your speaks:

1) Err on the side of slightly over-explaining warrants and interactions between args.

2) If you're reading stuff on case, I'd appreciate if you tell me where to flow your arguments. Good line-by-lining of the 1AC/1NC, as opposed to card dumps, is a lost art. Good warrant-to-warrant comparison and smart analytic responses make rounds enjoyable, and I express that enjoyment in the form of speaker points.

3) If you're debating a novice and you knowingly spread them out of the round, the highest your speaks will be is a 28.5 and I won’t feel bad about going even lower. By contrast, if you're debating a novice and you slow down and explain things simply to them (in other words, if you make the round accessible), your speaks will be high. Just use your best judgment here and don’t be mean.

4) In theory or K rounds, tell me what your model of debate looks like and how that frames the way I evaluate things.

5) Big pre-written overviews are generally not incredible at argument resolution, and fully doc'd out speeches can make it hard to know where to flow things. If you’re reading off a doc for most of the 2NR and it makes my life harder, your speaks will reflect that.

Jacob Koshak Paradigm

Likes:

K's

Dislikes:

Tricks/Theory as Time Suck

Neutral:

Larp

Phil

T

Speed:

Ok

Speaks Avg:

28.3

Disclosure:

Yes

Davis LaBarre Paradigm

I went to Northland Christian School, and have debated for 4 years. I qualified to the TOC the last 3 of the 4 years.

Paradigm: I default to truth testing, but comparative worlds, can be easily won.

Short Version: Debate is a game. Arguments that argue otherwise, i.e. (role of the ballot, specialized voters on t/theory shells,) are not as persuasive to me. That being said the easiest way to get my ballot is be strategic. Make good choices on the flow and grandstand at the right time. I’m not saying I won’t evaluate arguments like K’s or lengthy philosophical positions, but most of the time people reading them don’t layer the debate well and thus seem not as strategic to me. Surprise me by being unpredictable and you’ll get good speaks. Have fun, it is your debate round.

Speed: I’m fine with speed.

Theory/T: T is an issue of competing interps. Theory is reasonability. Both need an RVI to win a counter interp or I meet. Collapsing to theory in the 1ar is not strategic unless you have to, you shouldn’t. I think theory is drop the argument, while T is drop the debater if it is about their advocacy as a whole, if it is just about an advantage it is also drop the argument. I don’t believe in frivolous theory, I think every shell has a function, even if the function is to be a time suck, which is strategic. Debate is a game of seconds and every second sucked is probably good, especially if your negating. Offensive counter interps need an RVI they are not just offense.

K’s: You can run them if you like. Reading a 7 minute K and not answering or going to the aff is not going to get you great speaks. Also, I think role of the ballot arguments are not as persuasive as arguments that appeal to fairness, because how can I evaluate something that already skews your opponent’s chance of winning. I will still vote on these arguments.

Framework Debate: I don’t understand dense philosophy frameworks too well. Read them and then explain them well in the rebuttals. If you expect me to read evidence on the framework debate, I won’t.

Policy arguments: These are almost as fun as a good theory debate. Be strategic with the plans/counterplans or disads you read. I understand these arguments well and run these types of arguments frequently. I will read evidence on this debate if the debate is not clear or there is no weighing. WEIGH.

Extensions: If there is any ink what so ever on an argument it must require some response before or right after you extend an argument. If they concede an argument then just extend it quickly but spend more time on the implication.

Speaks: I will speaks based on strategy. I will disclose speaks.

Also:

-Spikes are fine, but know that they are not as persuasive if they are your strategy.

-Meta theory seems to be unpersuasive.

-I am not persuaded by “multiple shells bad theory” answer the shells.

-Don’t be a jerk it will harm your speaks.

-I won’t vote on things that are morally repugnant.

Edward Metelitsa Paradigm

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Metelitsa%2C+Eddie

Chris Palmer Paradigm

I'm Chris Palmer. Tabroom.com is mostly my fault. I'm largely out of the active coaching game because Tabroom maintenance and tabbing tournaments has largely taken over my life, but occasionally will judge, or stick myself on a pref sheet as a free strike so I can judge in an emergency.

My long history in the activity includes doing parliamentary debate and extemp in the dark ages, coaching and judging a lot of extemp, PF, LD and some policy and congress along the way. I've coached both champs and people who are lucky to win rounds, and respect both. I coached at Milton Academy, Newton South HS and Lexington HS in that order.

All: Racist, ableist, sexist, trans- or homophobic, or other directly exclusionary language and conduct is an auto-loss. Debate the debates, not the debater. I will apply my own standards/judgment to this because it's the only way I can enforce it.

Policy & LD: I'm not actively coaching but do regularly watch debates. I'm going to be OK with your speed but not topic specific jargon. Be slower for tags and author names, please, to help me flow. I'll say clear a couple times then just give up flowing and you won't like what happens. I have zero shame or compunction in saying "I didn't get it so I didn't vote for it." If I don't understand it until the 2N/2AR I'll consider it new in the 2.

LD: I started and did a lot of LD in the late 90s until the mid 2000s, then mostly stopped, then started again at Lex and coached them for about eight years. So I'm comfy with both older-school framework debates and the crazy LARP/policy arguments my kids mostly ran.

My threshold on theory tends to be high; the preponderance of dumb theory debates is part of why I stopped actively coaching LD. I wrote an article that people still card about how theory should be relegated to actual norm creation instead of tactical wins, after all -- though if you cite me in front of me as an attempt to flatter me instead of actually understanding the point, I will probably be cross.

The other part of why I stopped actively coaching LD is the sharp decline in civility and respect the event showcases now. I'm tired of people yelling each other about out of round issues and so on. I won't judge based on anything that I didn't see; disclosure theory, pre-round shenanigans, "he said last debate that he'd do X and he didn't" are all things I can't prove and won't vote on. I also will take a dim view towards post-rounding that crosses from questions into a 3AR/3NR and will adjust points to reflect that.

Don't tell me that the tabroom won't let me do that. I run Tabroom.com. I can do that.

Policy: I have less background in your activity than I do in LD. So I know the general outlines fine, as the events have converged, but I'm definitely going to need you to slow down just a titch especially if you're running the type of policy args that haven't crossed as much into LD, like T debates or specific theory/condo stuff. I'm very much not a fan of the politics debate and will have a very low threshold on no-link args, since I tend to believe politics almost never links anyway.

K: I am highly sympathetic to K debate and its aims, and will frequently vote for it if it makes sense in the round, but Ks get no more gimme wins from me than any other argument does. If it doesn't link or I don't get the impact or the alt sounds like we're supposed to stop all the world's troubles by singing campfire songs or some such nonsense you'll probably lose.

I have a couple concerns with the K and the one that is relevant to you as a debater is that I take a dim view to the type of K or identity debates that demand disclosure of identity from anyone in the room. I'm part of the LGBTQ spectrum, and when i was debating nobody knew that or could know that -- at some risk to myself. I therefore flinch reflexively if you seem to demand disclosure of anyone else in the room of their place on various identity spectrums, especially gender or sexuality. They have a right to keep private and a place in debate should not be the price of their privacy.

That said, if you put it on the flow, it becomes debatable. Don't try to run a K and then call no tag-backs if someone tries to answer your stuff with your stuff. If you put your own identity in the round your risk your identity being, y'know, debated. It's a risk, sure, but it's a risk you chose and when you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action.

PF: I mostly enjoy PF rounds and coached it as my only debate event for about 4 years at Newton South. I don't sneer at it like a lot of coaches from the LD/Policyverse might. However, there are a few things I really dislike that proliferate in PF that I will call out, so you can avoid them.

1) Evidence shenanigans between speeches. I do not understand why you can't have your evidence ready for your opponent to read/review immediately. Your partner can create a doc while you speak, for crying out loud. If you fumble around with it and can't get your act together, you'll see your speaks dropping.

2) Evidence shenanigans during speeches. Look, PF speeches are short. I get it. But ultimately the decisions as to whether you're abusing evidence are mine to make and I will make them. It's all a I-know-it-when-I-see-it test at the end of the day, so don't fabricate, make up, or infer things your evidence doesn't say because I will read and check anything that sounds suspicious to me, or your opponents call out. This includes PF Math™: taking numbers out of your ev and combining them in ways the author did not. I read a lot of news so the likelihood I know when you're making it up is rather high.

3) Good God most crossfires, especially the free-for-all at the end, make me want to stab my ears out. Here's where I import prejudices from LD and policy more than anything: CX is about setting up arguments and confirming things, not trying to corner and AHA! your opponents or sneaking in a third contention. CX sets up arguments, it doesn't make them. So I don't flow CX the same way if you try to extend something out of CX that's not going to go well for you and if you are an obnoxious talking-show nitwit during it that's not going to go well for your points.

4) If you're playing the game of "Look How Circuit I Can Be Mr Policy/LD Judge!" and your opponent has zero idea of what's going on, that also will not go well for you. Debate is engagement, and treating your opponent such that they can't engage by design is pretty much an auto-loss in my book. But apart from that there's few bounds of what types of debates and arguments I will see and vote for, so long as they're coherent and developed.

Rodrigo Paramo Paradigm

i debated ld and policy in high school, i coach ld @ greenhill.

toss me on the email chain: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

[current/past affiliations: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18), westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-now)]

I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, but find myself thoroughly enjoying 6 minutes of topicality or framework [like, T-framework against k affs, not kant] if it is delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell. I am a bad judge for tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not coach or think about analytic philosophy outside of tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace in order for me to process and understand all the moving parts - notably, this is also true for whoever is answering these positions.

Thoughts I have

0) New Thoughts I Have Had Since My Last Update:

  • the tfa topic has messed so thoroughly with how i think about debate - debaters need to be very clear very early on in the debate about whether they defend implementation, what that looks like, etc. - otherwise, i will find myself hard pressed to find paths to the ballot for either side.. (for instance... im not sure cps negate if affs dont defend implementation)

1) Evidence Ethics: Last year I saw a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. This year, if I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence.

I think that a piece of evidence is miscut if:

  • it starts and/or ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph.
  • text is missing from the middle of the card (replacing that text with an ellipsis does not make it okay),
  • the next paragraph or another part of the article explicitly contradicts the argument/claim made in the card,
  • the card is highlighted in a way that modifies or does not accurately represent the author’s claim - i think students & coaches both are far too comfortable highlighting only parts of words/sentences in a way that drastically changes the meaning of a card, and i think this is bad. [Be careful with brackets - I don’t think they always mean a card is miscut, but I’ve seen that they very often do. I think that brackets, more often than not, are bad - if a bracket changes the strength of a claim made by the author, or in some other way changes the *meaning* of the evidence, it is miscut],
  • if a cite lists the wrong author, article title, etc. (I hope to decide 0 debates this year on citations - I’ll only decide debates on them without challenges in the most egregious cases).
  • if a card does not have a citation at all and the debater is asked for it, but cannot provide it, i think this means you do not get that argument. i do not think it would be super hard to convince me that this is a voting issue, but i will not presume that.

If I decide a debate on evidence ethics, I will let the debate finish as normal. If the debate is a prelim, I will decide speaks based on the content of the debate and subtract two speaker points from the debater that I vote against. If the debate is an elim, I will submit my ballot and won’t say anything about my decision until the debate is announced.

If both sides read miscut evidence, I will vote against the debater who read miscut evidence first. (I really don’t love this as a way to evaluate these debates, but the only comparable scenario that I can think of is clipping, and that’s how I would resolve those debates.)

I do not plan to go out of my way looking for miscut evidence or checking to see whether every card is cut correctly. If I do notice that something is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads it regardless of whether a challenge is made.

Please do not hesitate to ask questions about this before the debate.

Evidence Ethics Procedures: the phrase "evidence ethics" means something - if someone says it and their opponent clarifies "is this an evidence ethics challenge," i understand this to mean that the debate ends - whoever has made the accusation wins if i believe the evidence ethics violation is correct, they lose if i believe the accused did not commit an evidence ethics violation - i will not independently end the round if the accused does not ask for this - if they do, i am happy to - words matter and evidence ethics matters - see the relevant section on bennett eckert's paradigm for more of my thoughts on this question. i also believe that debaters should think carefully before accusing their opponents of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, etc. - heavy claims.

2) Clipping: i have a good ear for when clipping is occurring - if i suspect it is, i will follow along in the speech doc - if i determine i am correct, the person clipping will lose. to be very clear, this does not necessitate the opponent making a clipping accusation - i feel very comfortable making this adjudication on my own.

3) Nebel T Update: in the past i have made clear that the nebel argument did not make a lot of sense to me. in many ways, i am still receptive to the "pragmatics first" school of thought. however i must admit that nebel 19 (the second one) appeals to me on a deep level. i intuitively believe that a world where debate has plans is a better one, but jake has convinced me that our topic wordings do not often justify that world. i will obviously still judge these debates based only on what happens in the round, but i am newly receptive to the nebel argument. some thoughts:

  • portions of the grammar stuff still confuses me at the speed of a debate round, so please slow down
  • given my fondness for plans, i am more sympathetic to semantic claims when you are defending Nebel

4) Comparative Worlds/Truth-Testing:

  • i will default to a comparative worlds paradigm unless the 1ac/nc justifies otherwise - later speeches cannot shift to truth-testing without an indication of that interpretive claim in the constructives.

5) Politics Disads:

  • i follow domestic politics prettttty closely. this means i will be thrilled to reward smart analytics made on politics scenarios and will be impressed if you know your stuff. that said, this means my bs meter is pretty high on some ptx scenarios - for instance, i am not going to vote on an impeachment impact unless you tell me how we get from a 53-47 gop senate to a successful vote to remove trump from office - absent that warrant, i will not grant you "impeachment proceedings remove trump from office" [of course, the opposing side must be able to explain why a 53-47 gop senate is unlikely to cast that votes
  • i think we are quickly approaching the time when i will see elections disads - if you read one, make sure your evidence is *recent,* *high-quality,* and that you understand the playing field well so you can make intelligent analytic arguments - this election will be the thing i think about most between now and november - i will thoroughly love a good politics debate - my expectations are low but hopefully someone can prove me wrong

6) miscellaneous thoughts on Theory/topicality:

  • slow down on it - will say slow twice. after that, i will miss your arguments and that will be the RFD. this is similarly true for perm texts etc - dont super care what the doc said if i didnt flow the text near verbatim in the 1ar. if i say "slow" i have almost certainly already missed an argument - do with that what you will.
  • im pretty receptive to text of the interp/text of the rotb/plan flaw args - i generally think that when issues arise in those 3 things, they are a result of students not giving much thought to them which is a shame bc all 3 are pretty important in my view - well crafted interps, as well as cxes that isolate plan flaws/interp issues will be rewarded (this does not mean i like /bad/ plan flaw args). i am also fairly willing to check in on semantic i meets against frivolous theory.
  • you should always flash or have written down interp/counter-interp texts readily available for both your opponents and your judges
  • i will likely be easily compelled by a "debaters should not bracket evidence" argument *if* you can execute it well - i have grown sympathetic to this argument as abuses become increasingly egregious
  • theory and topicality are different and i think this implicates what the 1ar is expected to do to respond to each. it also implicates what topicality vs theory interpretations (and counter interpretations) are expected to include
  • my reluctance to vote on bad theory arguments is not because they are bad but because i literally dont understand the abuse story on many many shells. some examples: spec status; spec standard; rotb spec; cant concede the aff framework; must concede the aff framework. i am not interested in judging these debates and do not think the feedback i give in these debates is that helpful for anyone involved. good theory debates can be great, but i will feel comfortable saying "i did not understand the abuse story so i did not vote on this shell" (this also applies to framework v k affs)
  • "in the interest of disclosing my own bias, i think the best debates happen when both teams are able to reasonably predict what arguments will be read (with the exception of new affs + unbroken neg positions). i am unsympathetic to arguments about disclosure that do not contest this point. even if you cannot post broken positions on the wiki for whatever reason, it is my belief that you should be willing to provide them, in good faith, to your opponent upon request in some way." - anna (weird to quote a former student on here!)

7) miscellaneous thoughts on T-Framework

  • i spent... a lot of time last summer thinking about framework against k affs - im into it if done well - im not as into the procedural fairness version of it - get creative.
  • i do not think i have ever been convinced by the claim that judges have a jurisdictional constraint to only vote for topical affs - i do not foresee that changing [really, *any* jurisdictional constraint is unlikely to be compelling to me bc it is a claim that just kind of is incapable of a particularly good warrant]
  • I think the best framework shells will be written to pre-empt semantic I meets, and will do more than just define three words in the resolution - they will provide a model for what topical affs must defend, they will have standards level offense that has explanatory power for why debate has rules, what the role of the ballot is, etc. - I suppose in short, the claim behind a good framework shell is stronger than just “the resolution determines the division of aff and neg ground.”
  • your shell should define a word in the resolution besides just "Resolved:"
  • pretty close to 50/50 voting record in clash debates

8) miscellaneous thoughts on permutations:

  • i do not understand why the aff would not get perms in a method debate - i have never seen a compelling warrant and can't really think of one - thus, the default assumption on my part is that the aff does get perms and it is a fairly uphill battle to convince me otherwise
  • i will not grant you the perm if i am uncertain about the perm text bc the articulation between 1ar and 2ar was different
  • perm texts should be more than "perm do both" - *especially* in the 2ar
  • you should always flash or have written down perm texts readily available for both your opponents and the judges

9) miscellaneous thoughts on the Kritik

  • i am so deeply deeply unreceptive to and uninterested in this trend of explaining new identity categories with the same form and language of antiblackness literature. if you do not have a psychoanalytic warrant, dont claim you do! if you do not have evidence identifying a structural antagonism, i do not know why you are using that language! sigh.
  • kritiks i have spent a lot of time thinking about: deleuzean scholarship, queer theory (a lot of authors fall under this second category), borderlands
  • kritiks I judge a lot: afropessimism, settler colonialism
  • kritiks I don't really get: baudrillard [i am far far more receptive to baudrillard on the negative than on the affirmative, but i think it is a kinda uphill battle against identity affs in front of me]
  • i think that the best k affs will have a defense of why *debating the aff* is good - not just why *the aff* as an object is good - why is the process of reading it in an environment where the neg must respond to it good? (in other words, the affirmative should answer the question of why it is good to read non-t affs on the aff, not just in debate)
  • i really enjoy a good performance debate
    • i think that people often attempt to go for performative offense when all they have done is read cards that are formatted in a normative way, at a conventional speed, and where later speeches revert to a hyper technical style of debate - i am *very, very* skeptical of the level of offense that these performances access - to get access to a "we change debate" claim, you should... do something I haven't seen before. a performance debate should not be indistinguishable from a policy debate, and these days almost all of the ones i judge are. that is a real shame.
  • my threshold for "debate bad" is fairly high - my presumption is that there is a lot of value in debate, and that is why I have stuck around for so long.

10) miscellaneous thoughts (strategy):

  • Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if the card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. The 1ac/nc should have evidence of high quality, and the 1ar/2nr/2ar should have explanation of that evidence of a similarly high quality
  • if the 2nr is split that is rarely a great sign for speaker points - it also is liable to implicate your ability to win the debate - any 2nr with 2 shells is deeply deeply perplexing to me and a shell + a cp/da is even harder for me to understand!!!
  • i will not vote for a position i do not understand - this includes poorly explained kritiks, sloppy link scenarios on a disad, dense ncs that i probably wont get, and theory shells whose abuse story i can not adequately explain back to the debaters
  • I'll say clear/slow twice - speaks will be deducted after that
    • given how clear it is to me that no one could flow a debate round as it is delivered, i am cool w debaters tossing out a "slow" at their opponents if they can't flow them at top speed
  • clarity is important for high speaks but more important than how you sound is making strategic decisions in the 2AR/NR collapse in the 2nr/2ar
  • if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it i think that likely means the 1nc arg is underdeveloped. that issue should be resolved pre round, not by relying on 2nr cards/new args - i think this is particularly true of very short topicality arguments - a sentence or two of standards will likely not be enough to beat a 1ar thats just like "hold the line"
  • I love a robust debate on the case line by line - I do not love a case debate that is just three disads read on the case page, or that dumps generic case turns on the page with no signposting / interacting with cards from the ac - this is particularly true when you read all the generic turns and then do the line by line.

11) miscellaneous thoughts (rules of debate):

  • i can't think of any instances where a debate round would be better if it includes personal invectives against specific debaters/institutions/etc - i can think of many when it is worse for it.
  • on flashing: i think if you send a doc with a lot of analytics that you do not get through, you cannot just refuse to tell your opponent what analytics you did/did not read
  • i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
  • flex prep means asking questions during prep time - in no world does unused CX time become prep time
  • speech times dont change presumption how wild - people should deploy presumption more against affirmatives that do not defend anything!
  • i generally do not believe you can merely "insert" a list of what the aff defends - I think this is functionally equivalent to not reading it.
  • my average speaks so far this year:
    • grapevine: 28.32
    • greenhill rr: 28.63
    • greenhill: 28.43
    • marks: 28.72
    • apple valley:28.3
    • glenbrooks + glenbrooks rr: 28.71
    • ut: 28.18
    • blake: 28.9
    • first semester average: 28.52
    • churchill: 28.38
    • emory: 28.75
    • colleyville: 28.23
    • stanford: 28.65
    • cal: 28.58
    • tfa state: 28.45

11) on trigger warnings:

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

Arun Sharma Paradigm

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sharma%2C+Arun

People I'm coaching @ the 2017-2018 ToC: TAMS MX, Katy Taylor AW, Klein Oak AG, Dulles MK, Cypress Woods CJ. Please do your conflicts accordingly.

If you don't want to see a bunch of GIF's here's a few quick things

1: Do whatever you want to do. Be in your zone. I don't care what your style is- the one thing I want is honesty. EX: I don't care if you have 200 skep triggers, but if your opponent asks do you have any skep triggers just say yes. That'll also make me more likely to vote on what you want me to vote on.

2: Evidence ethics claims are incredibly serious- seeing debaters tack them onto things like brackets, same font, etc is a problem. Don't bring up an evidence ethics challenge unless you are for sure SOME notion of evidence ethics has happened- I will not auto down these positions anymore- but I will be close to 100% okay with the RVI. NOTE: This means if you read something like brackets theory but only with a FAIRNESS voter then my normal default applies- I only get super ANGERY if there's an evidence ethics claim attached to it.

3: First 3 Last 3 Disclosure with contact information and summary of analytics is my favorite style of disclosing- as long as you're good at sending articles to people if they need them, you'll most likely never lose the disclosure debate in front of me- NOTE This means if you're a full text or open source person- look elsewhere. I won't outright ignore these arguments but I won't want to vote on them.

4: Saying the aff gets to weigh case makes no sense if it's a method debate- I don't care if it's most fair- this argument would conflate layers and make adjudication insanely messy. I won't ignore it- I'll just be confused

5: Ethical modesty is bad- I don't know what it means and I think it would involve judge intervention.

6: Don't presume I know what your fancy cool word is- err on the side of over explanation as opposed to under.

7: Embedded clash is very important to me and I use it in a lot of rounds- this means if i think logically an argument on one part of the flow would interact with another argument somewhere else- I will compare the two if it helps me make my decision.

Preston Stolte Paradigm

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS
Years Judging: 10

if I have judged you in the past/if I judge you, feel free to fill out this form and I will post responses at the bottom.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDXlY8uI0X1eOuekjXutz1j5eYKzsg4S-mdjoK4kn-ZqhSZA/viewform?usp=sf_link


TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, tech > truth, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful and certainly malleable.

***prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'***

**if you debate for a school that floods the judge pool with parent judging at national tournaments, you can effectively ignore this paradigm and should expect me to judge you as a parent judge would. if you have to ask does this apply to you/your school, it probably does**


*If you are an LD debater, this should give you a good idea of how to debate in front of me. Feel free to ask more specific questions before the round.*

Long version

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy.

This being said, if I am judging you in LD, here are a few things I've realized about myself that you should know: I find myself seeing most 'traditional/phil' strategies to be lacking in offense and largely ill explained; I think bad theory arguments are wildly unpersuasive and generally default to drop the arg; I think 'spikes' (especially when undisclosed) are not arguments and generally give the neg decent amount of leeway to make responses once they actually become warranted arguments.

-Truth v Tech: I find myself more frequently deciding close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, as I get older I find myself much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow. If I say clear it is because I cannot hear/flow you and you probably want me to have your arguments, if you hear me say clear and your opponent doesnt get more clear, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to ask me before CX what arguments I did/did not get on my flow because I don't see why you should have to answer arguments that I didn't even have flowed. this seems to be a problem that is especially true in LD.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is becoming an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR.


Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.
-Things that will earn you speaker points: being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, politeness, well executed strategies/arguments.
-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand/just reading blocks

Prep time stops when the email is sent






Survey Results:

If you had to give advice to a team who had this judge in the back of the room, what would you tell them?

--Do whatever you’re good at, he’ll be down for it.

--Read your normal arguments, but make sure you explain them correctly and are able to connect your arguments to the 2nr/2ar explanation.

--read what you feel comfortable explaining and is most strategic in your eyes

On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the least similar and 10 being the most similar, rate how you thought the round went down matched up to this judge's assessment of the round based on the RFD

8

9

5

What was the quality of this judge's RFD?

8

9

7

What was the quality of this judge's post-round comments?

9

9

8

What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is familiar with?

--I feel like he has a wide base of knowledge over a broad range of literature, which helps a lot in both Policy v Policy debates and Policy v K debates.

--Topic specific literature of policy affs/DA's and mostly familiar with the literature in the round

--Policy and Kritik

What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is unfamiliar with?

--Maybe the pomo bs people have are reading (baudrillard, bataille, etc.)

--This was only for a specific post-round question, but the judge wasn't 100% sure about ontology cards to read when aff vs settler colonialism.

--LD Moral Frameworks/LD Analytic Philosophy debates

Do you have any additional comments?

--Very thorough and helpful RFD!

--n/a

--Make sure to be explicit in not allowing judge intervention, ie "dont kick this for them"

Maggie Zollo Paradigm

I currently coach LD, PF, and CX at A&M Consolidated, and did LD at Northland Christian in high school. If you're here for PF, skip to the third paragraph.

As a debater, I read a lot of plans, DAs, and CPs and so I like listening to them, but I'm cool with other off case positions, too. When it comes to Ks, I would really appreciate it if the position was clearly explained (especially in terms of ROB/ROJ and the layer of the debate it functions on) and cleanly extended throughout the round, since I may not be as familiar with some of the literature (especially if you're reading pomo type stuff). I won't vote on any argument that tries to justify unjustifiable things (the Holocaust, slavery, other forms of oppression). If you need clarification on what that means, feel free to ask. If you're reading a process CP I'll be more receptive to perms/theory against it.

I would prefer that you don't read frivolous theory in front of me, it bums me out. I know my definition of that is different than others, so feel free to ask for clarification before the round. I'm open to listening to T, but I'd honestly prefer to not have it become the only layer in the round/the only thing I have to vote off of. Same with RVIs. Also, I find myself voting for K's a lot more often in TvsK debates, so my threshold for "non-topical" affs is probably more forgiving than some. I default to reasonability if it's a situation of potential or frivolous theory but will go with competing interps if you justify it, which isn't hard to do, so please take the extra 15 or so seconds to do so if that's what you want to go with. Also, extend voters and drop the debater arguments please. Condo is fine when limited to one (or two in CX) positions, but feel free to take the time to explain otherwise in either direction. I think conditional K's can be kind of bad perceptually depending on what the pre-fiat impact is if there is one, or if there's a performative/different method-based aspect to it.

You'll get high speaker points if you speak clearly, extend arguments, and weigh, and you'll get low speaker points if you're rude and/or offensive to anyone in the room (I listen to CX, too, so be civil during that), especially if you're debating someone clearly out of their depth and you're obviously winning but you decide to go about it obnoxiously, or if you speak particularly unclearly. In more competitive rounds aka at bid tournaments, speaks will be more likely to be based off of strategy. If you go all in on T or theory when you don't need to, for example, there's a chance I'll dock speaks. You can read as fast as you want, please just be clear. I'll ask you to be clearer a few times, but eventually I'll just have to try my best with guessing if you don't listen, and that isn't good for anyone. Also, for PF, the 2nd speaking team should cover part of the case in the rebuttal speech, terminal defense is fine to extend, and line by line is alright up until the summary, arguably the final focus. Don't go for everything, have solid issue selection since y'all don't get the best time constraints.

Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these points before the round, or ask any more questions that you think could apply to the debate. Thanks for reading this!

My email is zollomargarita@gmail.com, I would love to be added to the email chain.

rachel maciariello Paradigm

Speed: I'm comfortable with any speed of spreading.

K: I'm comfortable with K's as long as they don't have a reject alt. Link it back to the ROJ if you want me to vote on it.

Pre-fiat: I love pre-fiat impacts. Performance in debate is so important to making change, and I'm a firm believer that we can use debate to change problematic behavior within the debate community.

ID- Politics: I read ID politics. I think they certainly have a place in debate, but make sure to still link it back to the ROB.

DA: That's fine

T: That's fine, but I read non-T affs so I'm not particularly moved

Theory: Plz no. I will not vote on potential abuse.