Speech and Debate ALL Event Tournament
2020 — Online, US
SPEECH Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi! I'm Tristan and I've competed in Lincoln Douglas and congress at MA for three years and will compete this 2021-22 year in both.
My email is lunaphin62@gmail.com
General Thoughts
I do not care what you run. I personally debated everything from k's to larp to theory so I have experience running and judging most everything.
However, please limit the high theory. I'll evaluate it regardless but trust me, that will not be enjoyable for me or your opponent.
Additionally, regardless of what you say during the round I will immediately drop you if you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. As Spongebob once said, "don't be a jerk."
I'm tech over truth so idc about information outside the round, so if you don't say something in the round, it doesn't affect my decision.
Spreading is fine but please be clear, if I don't understand I'll say clear and if you don't become clear after three clears I'll stop flowing.
Always share cases, it makes sure the round doesn't turn into straw mans and helps every debater keep up regardless of skill.
If you're running something crazy then please let me know before the round and for the love of god tell your opponent. If they are not prepared for what you're running then I will not hesitate to drop you. No one should be excluded from the debate space.
Random Thoughts
Don't call me judge or sir, it's weird.
You don't have to read the resolution at the beginning of the round, I'll know the resolution and you can go straight into case.
Keep your own speech time please.
Please disclose prior to the round if you're running crazy stuff. If you're running trad stuff no need to disclose.
I try not to let my bias influence the round. I'm a high schooler and I pick the winner of the round. I have no position for you to appeal to so just debate the way you want.
Every framework is the same between vcs, robs, and rojs. Just because you use different names doesn't mean they're different layers, they're all ways in which I evaluate the round, always clash on framework no matter the name.
im not one of those people who gets triggered if ur chill in the round. ill give u higher speaks if ur funny
You better know your case. No matter how crappy you think your case is if I can tell it's one you wrote or put time into and your opponent didn't I'll feel no inclination not to vote down the person who stole cases or didn't put effort into their prep.
RVIs are cool.
I'm tech so I don't assume anything, you need proper warranting no matter how common sense of an argument you think it is.
Don't worry about gotcha questions in cx because one if you don't bring it up in a speech I won't evaluate it and two it makes you seem like a jerk if done in the wrong way.
CX is for questions, prep time is for prep, that's how debate is structured.
In any case, it's your round so you control where the debate goes, I'm just along for the ride. You do you, run whatever, and most of all have fun. Debate is most of all to have fun so that is the primary goal of the round. If you have any other questions please bring them up before the round and I'll be happy to clarify.
Trigger Warnings
If your opponent has trigger warnings on their profile and you ignore them I will drop you immediately and no further debate will be necessary.
If your trigger warnings are not posted on your profile or otherwise communicated to your opponent then you will not be given such leeway.
May the odds be ever in your favor.
Hi!
My paradigm is pretty standard to what I believe congressional debate should be so feel free to ask me any questions before a round.
Background
I competed in congressional debate for 3 years in the Carolina West district. I made it to quarters at Harvard, finals at Duke, fourth in my district in senate, and finals at the North Carolina state tournament. I also made it to triple octas at Nationals in World Schools debate in 2019 and double octas in 2020. I currently attend North Carolina State University (go pack!) and I'll be attending Duke Law in the Fall so if you can fit in any silly or snarky comments about UNC (where appropriate!!) it'll be appreciated.
Constructive Expectations
First and foremost, your job is to walk me through the piece of legislation. Assume I have no knowledge of the bill itself.
-First Aff: I expect that you give me an explanation of the problem and how advocating for this piece of legislation solves this issue. I don't expect (but I'm not opposed to) refutation from your speech.
-First Neg: I do expect refutation from you and every speaker to come after you. I will have the expectation that you will walk me through the problem with advocating for this bill and how not doing anything to solve the problem the affirmative introduces will be better.
Refutation
-Every speech after the 1st affirmative should have refutation. I don't care how you organize it into your speech as long as it is clear that you are interacting with what other speakers have said in round.
-I don't, however, consider just listing the last names of previous speakers refutation. If you are going to tell me that what Representative/Senator ____ said is wrong, I expect that you tell me why it is wrong.
-I prefer more refutation from later round speeches as this prevents you from giving rehash points. You have also heard more speeches before you so you should have more to refute.
Impacts
-Impacts are huge. You need to go beyond a cause and effect and explain to me why that effect is so critical whether it be bad or good.
Evidence
-I love a good piece of case destroying evidence as much as the next judge but I do expect you to go beyond just your evidence. I don't care if you spent all week hunting for as many pieces of evidence as you could find. I'd much rather you give me one or two and give me an in depth analysis of that evidence and follow it up with an impact.
Delivery/Rhetoric
-I will not fault you for stumbles in your speech. Fluency comes with practice but I do expect that you will be able to maintain your composure and continue speaking.
-I'm a fan of cheesy intros and jokes throughout your speech as long as it is appropriate with what your speech is about.
-I do not recommend spitting out rhetoric that everyone uses. If I hear you telling me that affirming this bill is like putting a bandaid over a bullet hole expect a heavy eye roll. I've heard it before and I'm sure I'll hear it again. This is not creative and, more often than not, feels more like filler words in between what you're really trying to say.
-Just because you are capable of shouting your entire speech does not mean you should. Your speech should have an ebb and flow of emphasizing what is important and backing off on what is not.
Questioning
-I expect to see interaction and involvement in the chamber but asking 10 shallow questions just to ask a question isn't worth it. I would rather you ask 4 or 5 difficult to answer questions. That being said if no one is asking questions and you stand to ask some I will appreciate it. This is a debate event. Not a speech event.
-While I do prefer you don't begin to scream or yell over the other speaker, if it is clear they are dodging your question or trying to give an extra speech feel free to cut them off. However, I should not feel like I'm watching a cage match.
-Avoid prefacing. The NSDA has not explicitly banned this but I personally believe that disadvantages the speaker and is simply a lazy way to ask questions.
Presiding
-I expect that you do keep a correct precedence and recency chart and may ask to check it if I feel like something is wrong. I will leave you alone otherwise.
-I will not drop you for the occasional slip up as long as you correct it. Honestly, if you don't majorly screw up, you'll get my top eight, maybe even six.
-I will be keeping my own time, as well as precedence and recency. If I notice an issue that is not called out I may not say anything but I will mark it on your ballot. Unless it is a repeated issue or I notice a pattern it probably won't affect your ranking too much.
Misc.
-Do not rehash.
-I won't drop you if I see you were trying to get called on but didn't. I will judge you on the speeches you give.
-While I understand there will not be an even split on every bill, after a while there are only so many speeches I want to hear on the same side. I'd much rather you give me a slightly less prepared aff rather than the 4th neg in a row.
-Above all, have fun with it. Some people may be able to debate in college but not all so enjoy the time you have. Don't take yourself too seriously and be open to the possibility of not everything going your way.
WSD Paradigm General
-In my experience, WSD is not meant to be very technical. It's not PF or Policy and I expect you treat it as such.
-Keep a world view when making arguments. Don't make your entire case about this US.
-Don't spread. If you start to spread I will put my pen down and just stare at you until you finish. WSD is meant to be more conversational.
-Try to avoid debate jargon? I may understand some of it but maybe not all of it so try to avoid using it.
-Careful with POIs. I've seen rounds where people will take either too many or none at all and it can absolutely break your case.
-Provide clear road maps before you begin your speeches please. It helps me to flow and keep track of the round.
Quickest way to be dropped
I have enjoyed my career in debate for the four years I was able to participate in it. However, I as well as many others, have had their fair share of rude remarks thrown my way. I have absolutely zero tolerance for this. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, ableism, and transphobia have no place in Speech and Debate and any of this will put you on the very bottom of my rankings. I expect that everyone is treated with equal respect and dignity.
pronouns: they/she
I participated in high school speech and debate for three years and am a former captain from Crescenta Valley. Currently, I'm coaching at Berkeley High School and am a sophomore at UC Berkeley majoring in Geography and Urban Studies. In high school I predominantly competed in parliamentary debate and extemporaneous speaking. I competed and broke at states, nationals, and NPDL TOC so I am familiar with both lay and tech styles (prefer the former). If any part of my paradigm doesn't make sense PLEASE ASK ME before the round. I'm here to make your speech and debate experience better.
Debate: The biggest priority in debate should be ensuring that the space is safe and inclusive to all debaters. I will drop you for making it unsafe or exclusive (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). Clearly explained warrants, links, and impacts will always be to your advantage. Signposting makes the entire round run smoother and comparative weighing makes the round far more engaging and easier to judge, so I highly recommend doing both. See speech section for info on speaks.
Theory/Kritiks: I don't have the most background or experience with them, probably not the best judge to run these arguments with, especially if they're frivolous. That said, I can flow them if they are well constructed and clearly explained and if you feel like they are necessary please run them. Ks and theory are pretty exclusive arguments, and many debaters don't have the resources to use or respond to them, don't use these arguments solely to flow your opponents out of the round.
Speech: If you want time signals let me know before the round and I'll happily give them. Speaks start at 27.5 for my base or average and go up/down from there. Novices will automatically get a one point bump. The main ways to boost your speaker rank and speaker points are by having engaging content, utilizing body language, having tonal and vocal inflection, and by adding humor and personality to the speech. I will give 15-30 seconds of grace time unless told not to (if it's an incredibly short event like spar that number is more like 10 seconds, don't abuse it).
I have about 7 years of experience in speech/debate and my pronouns are she/her. Please don’t hesitate to ask more clarifying questions if you need to but here’s my paradigm:
DEBATE
ALL EVENTS: Yeah ok you can go fast, I really don’t mind but if you guys decide to run some wacky arguments really fast please tag and cite clearly so it actually goes on my flow instead of getting lost in the sauce.
Being catty is okay because I kinda like a little drama but if I feel like you’re being unnecessarily rude, that may have an effect on the ruling albeit I would only use it as a tiebreaker.
Framing is key. Always.
I will always listen AND flow your last speech of the round so please don’t give up or halfheartedly do it because you feel like you’ve already won/lost. I’ve seen and debated rounds where the last speech completely changed the outcome of the ballot so please, try.
POLICY: I did policy actively throughout high school and have also debated the current topic. I would say tab/games. I’m familiar with most common K literature (Antiblack, Security, Baudrillard, Cap, etc) and will listen to anything but blatantly racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or sexist arguments. All arguments must have warrants and theory has to be explained.
LD: I’ve competed in it before but I’m unfamiliar with this topic so please tell me what your abbreviations mean. My policy paradigm is pretty much the same for progressive LD as well and if it’s novice, then just do your best and I’ll follow.
PF: I’ll listen to anything. I’m unfamiliar with the topic but familiar with PF and so dw I got you. Weighing is good! Structured flows and rebuttals are even better! FF and Summary are not just mini rebuttals! Please wrap up and give me voters in the last speech!
EXTEMP: Definitely need to hear sources and citations and they MUST be relevant. If you quote extremely biased news sources at me, I will be a little sad. Humor is an EASY way to get 1 in my book, however, make sure we’re staying on topic.
Any other event: just ask! I’m usually not that nitpicky so I’ll view the round however you want me to.
Public Forum:
I'm a flow judge who has experience in HS debate in the National Circuit--so feel free to signpost using jargon or just refer to cards by name, or use an appropriate amount of speed. I really don't like to or want to intervene on the flow. Please extend your arguments, especially weighing and warranting, so I don't have to. You can send me a dm on discord - muchanem#1975 - if you have any questions.
Flowing/ Speed:
I have experience in HS PF debate. I will be flowing on Flexcel and can flow almost anything except for the very fastest of spreading, around 900 word cases is where I will need a speechdoc. That said, I do prefer that you not spread a lot - and if you will be spreading that you provide a speechdoc. I understand the need for efficiency during/after 2nd rebuttal in the round, so as long as you're clear with your words, I can follow what you're saying.
Extensions:
Please extend cards with their tags - it helps me flow. When you extend arguments, extend warrants and impacts as well or it might as well not be flowed - unless your argument uses your opponent's impact which does occasionally happen.
Responses:
Please contextualize your responses in rebuttal. A turn isn't a turn unless you contextualize it.
Tech vs Truth:
I weigh tech over truth. However, I will drop a super techy argument that is near impossible to buy in the real world with even just a blippy response. I.e. I do flow everything, but don't expect me to not consider warranting.
Speaker Points:
Here's the hierarchy:
1. How easy your speeches are to follow/rhetorical skill.
2. How good you are in cross (but I will not weigh a round off of cross)
3. Being generally polite (no need to be over the top, just no bad behavior in round please)
Evidence:
I won't call for evidence unless there is an active dispute about what a piece of evidence actually says. Instead, I want you to call for evidence (if you need to) and tell me why I should buy your evidence, and recency is not a reason without a warrant.
Weighing:
Please actually comparatively weigh. A lot of weighing in PF is just scope and magnitude hidden as something else, I need you to properly weigh. For instance, if you have a short term econ argument, and they have a long term lives argument I need you to tell me why your short term econ argument effectively makes it impossible to solve their argument, why the short term is more important (urgency), or some other unique mechanism. Or, why should consider the long-term mechanics because of their larger scope or more central threat.
Crossfire:
If something important happens in crossfire, put it in a speech or it won't be on my flow. I only use cross to help me as a judge better understand arguments, and occasionally help decide speaks.
Extemp:
I'm a debater who also did extemp - so I do have experience in judging and competing.
Here are the things I like to see in extemp (in order of importance):
1. Content - extemp, at least in my mind is an event all about content and explaining a complex issue, thus you must have solid content - this means you have to be able to really have an information packed speech.
2. Painting a narrative - extemp still has to be accessible, it's not a presentation of the latest world event, this means you must be able to explain complex issues while still creating a narrative (I especially like extended metaphors)
3. Speaking ability - the most important thing is your fluidity, you must be able to present yourself as a knowledgeable speaker.
4. An eye-catching AGD - your AGD doesn't have to be funny, it just has to pique my interest (though I do usually prefer funny AGDs)
Here are the things I don't care about as much (not in any particular order):
* The amount of evidence you have - as long as you're not using 2 pieces of evidence for your whole speech you'll be fine.
* Perfect walking
* Gestures (as long as they're not overused)
Thanks for debating! Hopefully we can have a fun, enjoyable round =)
Stuff about me:
You can probably think of me as a lazy flow judge - I can usually keep up, but I'm not going to get everything if its 10000 per min
I did four years of PF and spent the last year on the nat circuit (did alr with a couple bid, but nothing crazy). Currently Icompete in BP in college (who knows why) and its going pretty solidly
Yes, I like email chain, and yes, pls add me (pasikanti@wisc.edu)
I hated adapting to judges, so for the most part, I'll try to adapt to you instead. So just debate how you want and as long as its not crazy, I'll follow along and we can have a better round!
Now onto the debate stuff
PF:
I've had a lot of experience with this, and a lot of different styles going from wisco to the nat circ, so I'm probably good here
Speed doesn't really matter (again, be reasonable with that and make sure your actually speaking words)
For most things, I'll probably understand what your talking about, but it doesn't hurt for you to explain it anyways
Signposting is good, pls do it
Don't need to extend card names --- speech docs are especially helpful though
I also hated extending warranting and impacts, but thats also why i lost round so you should do it if im your judge
Weighing is good, i would recommend you do a lot of it, especially in summary and FF
Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary --- depends if your first or second obviously
Prolly nothing new after first summary, and if there is you get new responses in first final or just say that its new lol (or be safe and respond)
Pls cut your cards, and I mean don't just send a link of text - have the card cut with highlighting, etc...
If you're going for Ks, T, theory, etc.... I have a bit of experience with this, but just in case, make sure you get the warranting it as best as possible
Nothing racist, homophobic, sexist, promoting self-harm, etc... etc.. Y'all know what I mean, just don't be that person
Anything Other Format:
Skim the pf section for generic info, but I will try my best to judge whatever event this is. Speech docs are usually particularly helpful for events that are faster, and ev based (ld, policy, etc..)
Ks, T, theory, etc... is bigger in other events, so a little bit more here:
Theory - I'm pretty solidly versed in (just don't run it on people who clearly have no idea what your talking about, it makes the round less fun, it truly doesn't educate anyone in the round, and most importantly, I will hate you for it) (I also like disclosure)
Ks - I've only really read cap, so that's about the the extent of my experience on this. That said, I do have the generics of most of the literature bases, however, this isn't a get out of jail free card - make sure you explain and warrant everything and do it as slow as possible for me (pls and ty) I'm also a fan of performance, although the brightline for winning is a bit higher
For policy, my friend says that DAs are the best and should be in every 1NC.
Again because it's important, nothing racist, homophobic, sexist, promoting self-harm, etc... etc.. Y'all know what I mean, just don't be that person
Literally just have a good time, at the end of the day, it's just a game
Background:Competed in New Mexico from 1998 - 2001. LD, US Extemp, and Interp. Competed at NMAA District and State. Former coach at Tom Glenn High School and Danielson Middle School in Leander, Texas. Began both programs when both campuses opened in 2016 and 2020. Current City of Liberty Hill Council Member, education coach, consultant and judge.
Debate Paradigm: I value being provided a road map with special attention to how well you’ve researched and read on your value/plan. My decision hangs on clash, solid sparring in cross, proper use of prep (pre-round and during), and down ballot voters.
Interp Paradigm: I value deliberate choices that seem natural. Avoid tears when interpreting authors’ works.
Extemp Paradigm: I value clear signposts so I may take notes down ballot on: Teaser/AGD (attention-getting device), Introduction, Question/Answer, Points/Subpoints, Variety of Sources/Evidence, Closing/AGD.
Hello! I'm one of the head coaches of the Bloomington HS Speech & Debate Team! My expertise is in congressional debate, public address, limited prep, and poetry. As such, I'm a sucker for ethos, pathos and logos. Please include your sources when making claims. Above all, I'm looking to BELIEVE the words you're saying, and that you're fully engaging in the debate. If you're furthering debate, you've got my attention. This isn't about what I think is right; it's about what you do with the docket in front of you. I will judge YOUR arguments (and who best communicates significance/impact), not what I think is the right argument based on my experiences. Lastly, please avoid personal attacks during cross examination and/or direct questioning.
Currently coach of Minnetonka High School
Hey Y'all I love weighing and extentions and plzzzzzzzzzzz signpost for me.
Ive done circuit for 1 year for LD. Done 2 years of LD, 2 years in other formats, and also 1 year in Congress
LD - Make sure to sign post when speaking. Use weighing mechanics to weigh impacts. Clearly explain framework and why your fw matters. If you don't signpost while doing your rebuttal I will drop it.
- Idk lately why a lot of debaters don't link their case back to their fw.
- Also weighing too duh????
- Signpost plz so I don't get confused lol
- Tech>Truth
If I yell out clear 3 times I will stop flowing
Circuit LD - Plans, Disads, CP, K and Theory only. I will not vote on tricks arguments.
Plans,Disads,CP>Theory>K>Other things
I will vote you down for any Tricks
Congress - Speeches must be clear and concise. The only way you will get a good placement if you actually have clash.
*Little rant: I don't know why nobody in congress have clash. This is a real debate hence you would need some clash. Don't just go up and say your side without talking about the other sides points.
How I vote on congress. Argumentation/Content>Speech points/Quality>Quality of Questions> Following Procedures
Email chain send to trinh120@umn.edu