Hi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.

Email:

brett.banks@utexas.edu- Add me to the chain, please!

Worlds:

I am a blank slate and treat this event as tech > truth. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.

PF:

Tech > Truth within reason here. Add me to the chain.

LD/CX:

Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.

Speech:

I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.

I have been coaching speech and debate since 1999, first in south Florida and now in central Florida.

LD: I am not a fan of Kritiks. In most respected academic realms, students are not rewarded for giving an off-topic response to a prompt. I have found that most Kritiks fall under the "off-topic response" descriptor, thus I do not take them seriously as a response to the resolution (or, as I see it, the prompt). Further, I find these types of arguments counter to the essence of the debate activity, excluding new and small programs and creating an exclusive sub-group (clique, if you will) within the debate community.

So in that respect, I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge than a progressive one. I want to hear a clear debate about the values that are in conflict in the resolution. Your cases should be comprised of arguments that are based in credible, academic sources; they should be built on clear logic, creative and innovative ideas; and they should actively and directly clash with your opponent's arguments. Debaters who can present a strong case with great logic and evidence, effective refutation of their opponent's case, and ultimately prove their Value/Value Criterion will win. If both debaters are equal on contentions and rebuttals, I will decide the round on which value holds up. So, make sure everything you argue ties back to your V and VC.

Special Note about progressive LD: While I do not like this style, I will (of course) judge you on your performance in the round, whatever shape each particular round takes. I will not judge anyone solely based on style/type of case. But let me elaborate a bit on why I find progressive style LD so problematic.

First, the speed is antithetical to real communication. Ideas, especially complex, nuanced, layered ideas (the likes of which one would hope to encounter in LD) require momentary breaths, pauses to let them settle. While sharing cases can help, it does not solve the issue fully. Also, the prevalence of JARGON in progressive debate is a distraction from the arguments in the round. Do your best to limit the use of jargon.

My next concern is the facile, reductive treatment given to the philosophical and academic theories often used by students. While I applaud your efforts to engage with these complex, rich, important ideas and texts, debaters are too often punching above their weight. That is understandable. Scholars spend their entire careers unpacking these theories. It is the very rare teenager who can engage with them without reducing them to tag lines and washed-out, oversimplified shadows of the textured ideas they actually are. IF you truly understand the ideas you are using (and you’re not just parroting something written by your team/coaches/camps), then go for it.

Finally, as the coach of a burgeoning team at a Title 1 school, I am very concerned about the fairness of this type of debate for programs like mine. Much has been written about this issue, so I will not belabor the point.

PF: The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round. I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during most of the round, but I am still looking for all of the hallmarks of good communication: eye contact/hand gestures/facial expressions/voice modulation. Although I won't decide a round based on a single dropped argument, I will consider that as part of my decision. The best rebuttals are those who can systematically go down the flow and address most arguments. Strong contentions will include important impacts. Strong cases will provide some sort of framework. A good final focus will include impact weighing and voters.

Again, I am not a fan of the changes occurring in PF. Jargon (lots and lots of it) has crept in, and we have left the “public” in Public Forum far behind. (Sigh).

Final note: I value clarity over speed, and I consider civility to be of paramount importance in all rounds. Assertiveness does not require aggression. Assertiveness is applauded; aggression will be penalized.

I graduated 2022. Debated four years in LD, two in congress, and did speech categories in forensics for all four years. Add me to the email chain ihoffm2003@gmail.com.

General notes: Run whatever you want as long as it's not offensive. If there is anything that might be considered triggering please give a warning. Be respectful, be passionate, and have fun. If you have any questions about anything, please don't hesitate to reach out.

LD (or PF or Policy) : This is by far the category I'm most comfortable with. I've competed in the circuit a bit so I'm good with speed and progressive arguments(NO TRICKS) but that doesn't mean I hate lay debate. If you're going to spread, please case share because I won't flow what I don't catch. Tech over truth. Framework comes first!!! Low key, I think value debates are dumb. I care a lot more about the value criterion. Make a story with clear impacts and voters. Tell me why I'm voting for you. I won't connect your dots. Love me a good power tag but please make sure that your card actually says something kinda relevant to the tag. It's not enough to say "the debater dropped x contention so flow my initial response through." Tell me what that initial response was again. Sign post like your life depends on it. It makes everyone's life easier.

Congress: I've competed in circuit so you can rest assured I'm not another parent judge. This is a DEBATE category. Get aggressive during cx! Please for the love of god interact with other representatives with your speech. Impacting good. Evidence good. If you want more specifics look at my speech paradigm.

Speech categories: Although this might not be interp, feel free to get a little theatrical. I weigh content like 1/2 of what I do your delivery(do what you want with this, obviously it doesn't apply to radio). Creative hooks/analogies will always make me happy but it has to make sense. If you're not super confident with your content, pretend like you are.

Credentials: Done speech, debate, and congress all four years of high school. 2x NSDA nat qualifier in LD and 1x in World Schools. 4x NCFL qualifier in LD. Class of ‘28 for University of Wisconsin Stevens Point for Psychology and Sociology, I still participate in Model UN and Speech on the collegiate level.

Put me on the email chain at: shoffm18@icloud.com

Short Version

FOR ALL DEBATERS: tech > truth

I vote on the flow, if it’s not there on my flow, I’m not voting on it regardless of what you say

LD- LD is what I do so I'm pretty comfy of you running anything. Signpost like your life depends on it, it just makes it easier for everyone. Run prog if you want to, I'm usually chill with people running it if you run it well. I am not a fan of tricks. It usually is not a fun debate to watch, be in, or judge so I will honestly drop you if you try to run it; they're not worth it in my opinion. If you spread make sure you're clear

PF and Policy- I haven't done PF or Policy, so I only know the basics. I've only judged one PF round in my entire life and I haven't judged policy at all. I am literally cringing while writing this out but treat me as a parent judge who knows how to actually do impact weighing and prog

Congress- I have done Congress numerous times, please keep your speeches organized and WEIGH IMPACTS! I LOVE aggressive questioning blocks if it's direct- you will get placed higher or if not placed higher, have higher speaks I will always put the PO pretty high if they are productive, organized, and keep the session running smoothly. Y'ALL, I AM ALWAYS READY UNLESS I TELL YOU DIFFERENT! I hate when people want me to give them weird hand motions (butterflies, hearts, etc) it's so weird and unnecessary like dawg be so fr with me right now. This is DEBATE CATEGORY I don't want an organized socratic seminar.

Quick Prefs

LARP/Trad/Lay: 1

Topical Ks: 1

CPs/Plans: 1

PICS: 2

Heavy phil: 3

Nontopical Ks: 3

Theory: 3

Tricks: Just don’t run them. I don’t pick them up, you’ve been warned so don’t post round me

Args

LARP/Trad/Lay: SUPER comfortable with this, the district I competed in was only trad so I know the ins and outs. Just please make sure you have solid and not goofy link chains and warrants within your case.

Topical Ks/K affs: Pretty comfy with this too, just make sure your initial link chain is a solid and rob, burden, voters, whatever it is isn’t abusive to your opponent.

CPs/Plans: My biggest issues with these is that within your DA or Advantage prior to the CP, there’s never a good or clear warrant on why we need to the CP or even within the CP itself how it solves

PICS: Same thing that I said for CPs, prove to me its function in the round and be super clear on how it works. Also just make sure you have a clear voters if you run them

Heavy phil: If you are the 5% that runs phil well, go right ahead. For the other 95%, I don't like phil. Like yes, it makes sense, but the majority who use it assume that everyone knows what that phil is talking about and not everyone does, or they cherry-pick what they want to use and that's just another violation within itself. If your opponent is confused, I probably am as well.

Nontopical Ks: Make sure your linkchain is clear as it physically can be. My problem with non topical Ks is that usually cards, warrants, and impacts are powertagged majority of the time. Pls pls pls specify how your case solves, if you decide to run non topical stuff you automatically create the extra burden on proving to your judge why they should even listen to you in the first place.

Theory: Tbh I don't like theory, unless there's a true violation within the debate round (racism, homophobia, sexism, etc). Don't run disclosure theory if you're from a big school against someone from a little school. It's just a cheap way to win a round. Dawg, if you are a good debater, you should be able to beat any case- regardless if you have their case beforehand.

Tricks: I don’t like them, like at all. They're just annoying, don’t be annoying.

For Everyone

I am always ready unless I tell you different

It's insanely hard for me to give you perfect scores for speaker points unless your speech or speeches were the definition of perfection. For debate, assume I'll score you somewhere in between 26.5 through 29.5.

It's insane that I have to be writing this but I will NOT allow any belittling or prejudice in ANY round or in ANY form (homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.).

If I find out about any actions that exclude members (specifically students from little schools) from the pool before the tournament starts, or if I witness the effects on them, I will report you to tab for an equity violation. Being from a small school, it's insanely classist and encourages these barriers that this activity is trying to break down. Don't deny that this happens (we all know it happens and it's super obvious in rounds).

As members of an activity that is supposed to give an equal voice to all, upholding these behaviors that have been happening for years and years is insanely rude and disappointing. Hold each other accountable.

Overall, have fun (this is supposed to be a fun activity) and I'm excited to judge you!

Hey! I'm a student here writing this on behalf of my dad, who is acting as a parent judge. To provide some background, he is a business systems analyst/IT worker with a bachelor's degree in geology and a master's degree in business and computer science. Consider him a lay judge, so please don't do anything too fancy in-round, and lay off on jargon. He is very intelligent and regularly keeps up with the news and politics, so please don't try to provide any incorrect information in your favor. He's not too familiar with speech times, so please don't ask for time signals, and, like with any judge out there, please make sure to do impact calc in final speeches during debate rounds. When you enter your rounds, please let him know who is who before the round begins.

No spreading: you cannot win if he is judging and you are spreading. Automatic loss.

Thank you and good luck in your rounds! 

Sasha Kreinik Paradigm

Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com

I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.

LD/CX:

Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.

LD:

Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.

All:

One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.

I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.

In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.

Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.

Village 24, Rice 28

Please put me on email chain!

Email Chain: lihungpaneric0827@gmail.com

I found my past paradigm to be way too depressing so here's a new version.

General Info:

I was a fairly mediocre circuit debater. Not TOC level, but should be qualified enough to adjudicate a majority of the rounds. I specialized in philosophical arguments (Kant and Hobbes) and did some policy and tricks as sidekicks. I'm ok with most of the debate styles out there even though I'm really only proficient in phil.

Graduated debaters & coaches that I was influenced by: Alex Yoakum, Issac Chao, Jackson Hanna, Jacob Smith, Lily Broussard, Arjun Verma, Christian Han, Chris Castillo, Regina Blenda, Alice Water, JD Kollar, Paul Aldritch,Ansh Sheth, Sophia Tian

Friends & ppl I like on the circuit: Laura Huang, Audrey Finch, David Xu, Max Gu, Selina Zhang

Paradigm:

I don't believe there's such thing as a "no-no" in debate. That is to say, I will evaluate everything you said even if it might be morally repugnant. I think you should be able to run anything you like-- even if it is argument like extinction good. I will presume everything you said to be true as long as it falls to a reasonable margin. However, principle of sufficient reason does apply. For instance, if you claim climate change is not true, please at least have a card that says so. Additionally, please bear in mind of my limited intellectual capacity. It is not likely that I will understand some of the nuanced of substances that are not Phil. Another thing I notice is that I vote on presumption & permissibility quite often.

You can be funny, even somewhat meanie meanie funny. But unlikely how I approach substances, I do think respect is necessary. I might not down you for it but might dunk your speak (If both sides have fun though... different story, boasting speak)

Preference:

Trad 1 (Every judges can judge trad, I feel like it could be interesting at time, if debated well)

Phil 1 (if it is util vs Kant, will boast speak)

*Tricks 2

LARP 2 or 3 (I know how it works, but it depends on how dense they are)

Theory/Topicality 4 (I know how it works, I'm just terrible at it)

K 5 (I think I know how it works, but I have only won one K round in my entire debate career, so eh)

*Tricks here refers to substantive tricks that are educational. I know it is vague, so here's a rule of thumb: If the other side have ground, than it is a permissible trick in my opinion. In other word, I don't find a priori educational, I do find truth testing & permissibility trigger & skepticism great. Regardless of its nature, I'll judge it to the best of my ability, but the threshold might be lower

Speed:

I have difficulty listening to spreading that goes too fast (anything above 300 wpm). I'll try to yell "loud" or "clear" if necessary. Please pause after reading the taglines, it helps a lot. I flow on paper & I'm pretty bad at flowing so please keep that in mind.

I understand how difficult spreading is.... as someone whose first language is not English, I feel it. (Technically English is my 3rd/4th language so eh.) Therefore I don't normally punish a debater on clarity unless it is too far. In other words , if you ignored "loud" or "clear".

Theory:

Friv theory has to be contextualized, the threshold of response would be low, but I will vote on it.

If you go technical please explain them well. If they are innovative and understandable (preferably with in-round abuse) they will certainly be entertaining.

Not a fan of RVI but I do recognize that it could be justified under some limited circumstances, such as friv theory.

Don't extempt theory shell if possible. Because I have a terrible flowing with regards to theory shell.

Tricks:

I personally don't understand why presumption and permissibility are tricks

As mentioned, I don't like A priori. But I'll vote on it and it should have no impact on your speak if you did not go for it. If you win on it I might reduce speak depends on the circumstances (not a lot though)

Stuffs like Neg should not have prep time or evaluate the round after the 1AC is funny, but I look forward to the justification. Response threshold is probably low.

Long underview? Annoying, but effective. No comment.

LARP:

Not too familiar with CPs, but please go for them. Be creative, but don't be too creative. For instance, I'll have lower threshold for Consult and Delay CP, etc.

My personal belief is that PICs are fine as long as they are reasonably justified to be different from the plan post-fiat, i.e. no word PICs. But, your call.

If there's something unconventional, please explain them.

Please weigh and collapse

Interesting impact turns like sparks and wipeouts are very funny

General impact turns are good too.

Phil:

My favorite...do whatever you want, I got you (Except, let's say, Heidegger-- in that case just explain them well and it should be fine)

Philosophy is open to interpretation. I don't care what Kant or Hobbes actually said. I only judge what you said and what I could understand.

I feel like Phil debate is underappreciated... technically in so far as you win the fw debate, it is almost always an auto W absent pre-fiat or theoretical impacts.

I feel like Moral skepticism and determinism are more phil than tricks, but it doesn't matter anyway.

I really really hate extinction outweigh, so please stop making your opponent win on this argument.

Kritik:

Used to hate it because I don't understand it. Now I have reconcile with it. Unfortunately, I still have difficult evaluating K simply because my limited knowledge about the literature and just generally how they interact with each other and other positions.

Please make the alt has some kind of solvency, whether discursive or physical. I met many debaters do not even know what the alt is doing... and it is... not good.I evaluate phil framework at the same layer as K. This is because K being a higher layer is dependent on you winning your thesis and your ROB, but in that case, you will win the debate anyway. I don't see how K is an automatic higher layer. But this could be shifted by like one line.

Prepare a case list of Aff that fits your K which your opponent can read. If you fail to do so when your opponent asks for them in CX, you lose. K debate is meaningless if it is impossible for the aff to not violate the thesis.
I'll take the "ROB is arbitrary" kind of argument if you do not respond to them.

Identity K should probably be read by someone from that group. Reading Yellow Submarine or something like that against Asian debaters when you are not Asian is beyond my understanding. It is true now that set col., queerpess, disability-pess, etc. are now widely ran by debaters who do no belong to that group, and I understand. My threshold is whether you appropirate the agency of that group. I understand the brightline is extremely unclear, so I'll try not to intervene. But the problem is... I don't know how not to intervene, which means bias is inevitable.

If you would like to play it safe, please strike me.

Defaults.

Epistemic confidence > Epistemic modesty

Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds

Argumentation > Persuasion (In traditional round, the latter may or may not affect the speaker's point, depending on whether it affects the clarity of the argument, probably only +-0.5 max)

Theory > Kritik/Framework (Util & Phil) > Advantages/Impact/Contention

Presumption negate and permissibility affirms

Speaker Point

I try to keep the mode around 28.7, probably won't go below 28.3 unless there's a good reason. +-0.2 if you are slightly better or worse than average. Never go down below 27.5 no matter how bad you did technique-wise.

Will give a 25 in very limited cases under exceptional circumstances. Will give 29+ rather frequently. Will give 29.5+ occasionally. Only 30 if the round is like WOW, so like... not likely.

I'm more lenient in local than national circuit. Additionally, if I know you try hard, I'll also boast your speak.

I used to run benatar on novices, so I'll permit that. You will not punished for that in so far as you are not mean to the novices & does not have that superiority complex. If you are the novice, I'll make sure your speaker point is above the mode if you had tried your best.

Easy way to boast speak

If you brings me bubble tea with 25% sugar +0.5

If the debate is fun +0.3

If you run argument that I feel like is crazy, but somehow make sense +0.3

If you can name my favorite debater (impossible difficulty) +0.2

For Traditional Debater (If you have no idea what everything above is, you probably are)

Just do your best. I will use your skill of persuasion to determine your speaker's points. Because I think that's what traditional debate is: argumentation + persuasion.

For Circuit Debater:

I really want to say do whatever you like, but really I can't. Simply because I'm too stupid to understand some of the arguments, so please forgive me about that.

If you have any questions, email me, and have fun. Nothing cheer me up better than a good debate.

For PF;

Everything above apply. I debated PF for 1.5 years so I should have adequate amount of experience. Don't make it too like policy though, that kind of ruined the point.

For Policy:

Very unlikely I will be put into this pool. But if I did, assume I am an above-average lay judge. Because I'm probably trash by policy standard.

Everyone’s paradigm is too long and this one is also too long sorry abt that y'all

-

-Vista Ridge ‘23 + TXST ‘26

-3 years PF, 4 years congress, 4 years extemp, 2 years oratory and LD occasionally

-Ask me about joining the TXST speech and debate team

PF / LD

See Jonathan Daugherty‘s paradigm it sums up how I view rounds.

Only difference is I’ll vote off theory or a K (topical or not) if it’s well-warranted.

This is your game play it how you want, all I ask is that you defend your interpretation of the rules and event.

-

WSD:

Please weigh. If you don’t weigh I have to intervene. I do not want to intervene. Simplify the round and I will be happy to vote for whatever the path of least resistance is.

-

Congress: (long soapbox)

Will rank someone who gave a mediocre speech but heavily participated in chamber higher than someone who gave one amazing speech but then didn’t participate in chamber.

Forget equity, move the round forwards and you’ll be my favorite. We do not need to make sure everyone gets a speech just to have 20 minutes of rehash. Dockets usually have 5+ bills for a reason.

If you need time to call a recess to prep a speech that is not good, come prepared.

Congress is not just about speeches, it's about how you present yourself.

Speech :

I don’t think this needs a paradigm but this is what I mainly judge so if you’re curious just do your event as you would normally.

-

email - smcstabs@gmail.com

reach out if you have questions

-

sometimes tabroom doesn’t save ballots, I always leave ballots no matter what. if you are not seeing a ballot tell your coach to email me and I will forward it to them. I pre-write and save all of my ballots in word.

I am an assistant Speech and Debate coach, but mostly work with Speech events. I know the basics of Debate events, but I am not a pro, so I prefer when debaters speak at slower speed rather than spread.

I'm ok with either progressive or traditional style debate (I'm ok with running K's for the most part)

The most important things are to be kind and have fun :)