NIETOC TFA Space City Swing Redux
2022 — Houston, TX/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideTrinity University '26 | Seven Lakes '22
Email Chain: priyankabehera145@gmail.com
General:
Tech > Truth as long as the arguments are well warranted
I'm fine with speed, but don't compromise on clarity; send me a speech doc if you're going to spread
Signpost arguments and tell me exactly where you are on the flow
I don't flow dropped arguments or anything said after time
I like a good cross-ex with clash and don't flow unless there's a major turn or concession
Please be respectful to each other throughout the round
Specific:
Second rebuttal needs to address all arguments introduced to the debate. And, first summary needs to respond to attacks made during rebuttal, otherwise, it's conceded.
I am okay with collapsing, but if there is a turn on an argument in your case, you need to respond to it.
Summaries need to extend arguments- uniqueness, link, internal links, and impact. If you don't, you won't have access to your arguments during final focus. No offense = no reason for me to vote for your side.
Final focuses should be big picture and extensive on weighing. Give me reasons that I should vote for you. There shouldn't be any new arguments at this point in the debate.
Feel free to ask any questions before the round if I haven't addressed anything.
(she/they)
Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.
I am hard of hearing
I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.
How I evaluate debate.
Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.
### Speeches
If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.
### Cross
Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.
### Spreading
I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.
### Theory
If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.
I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)
Big Oofs
These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.
1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.
The Respect Amendment
This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.
I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…
1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.
Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23
Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com
Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com
Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.
Arguments that I am comfortable with:
Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.
Arguments that I am less familiar with:
High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.
Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.
Speaking and Speaker Points
I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.
Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.
I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.
You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.
Summary
Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.
EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).
If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.
Miscellaneous Stuff
open cross is fine
flex prep is fine
I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded
Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.
Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.
In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.
I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.
Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.
do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose
1.) experience in debate/judging?
-been in debate for three years
-judged at the LCHS competition
-judged middle school debate
2.) How do I judge?
-I will flow your presentations and typically base my winner on the amount of non-dropped points.
-I will also look for the delivery and execution of argumentation.
3.) Preferences?
-I don't mind if yall talk fast, just please don't talk so fast that not even you know what you are saying.
-please show respect toward your opponent
-don't yell when presenting
-I love a good intellectual debate!
4.) P.S.
-I LOVE a good lively cx! Feel free to get snappy and try to outwit your opponent! Feel free to let loose as long as it doesn't get aggressive! :)
-I bring extra chargers, paper, and pens, so if you need anything, feel free to ask! I just need it back at the end of the round!
-I also reveal the winners at the end of the round!
-you've probably noticed typically go for the aff. Please don't let this worry you. I will vote for whoever not only presents a good debate but can answer the other's questions etc (as listed above)... So please do your best! Don't let my past scare ya ;)!
Any questions? Please email me or ask me in person!
I WISH ALL OF YALL LUCK!! ♥
email: kelseydo2004@gmail.com
My son wrote this paradigm
I am a parent judge, a father of 3 debaters. Although I am able to understand most arguments, I would prefer if you speak slow, as it will be hard for me to understand people who debate or speak too fast. As long as I can hear you and understand well, I should be able to understand the arguments.
Please enunciate and speak well.
Tech > Truth
compete on the nat circ
put me on the email chain: jzhao25@mail.strakejesuit.org
feel free to reach out if u have questions
big picture stuff
tech > truth
collapse extend and weigh -- debate is a game but just don't do anything that's problematic i.e racist, homophobic, etc
speed is a tool that should be used to explain things better and give them more breadth not to spam warrantless arguments but a good dump is always appreciated -- speed is fine but send doc and analytics
weighing needs to be comparative and meta weighing or link weighing are good way to clear up the weighing debate --dont try to hide new defense as "probability weighing" --link weighing > impact weighing
anything that isnt frontlined in second rebuttal is conceded
turns need to be implicated and weighed
default neg but u can make args otherwise
prog
fine w theory -- dont need to extend interp/violation in rebuttal but the shell should be read in the speech after the violation
default to yes rvis competing interps and text > spirit
no rvis doesnt mean ur shell is a no risk offense issue -- if someone wins a link turn on ur shell or that their ci is better u lose
if multiple shells are being read they need to be weighed against each other
not well versed in more complex k lit like baudrillard but i have a good understanding of the stock stuff like cap, security, set col, etc so run at ur risk
try to make the k as accessible as possible so that a parent could understand
low threshold to responses to trix and dont hide them in tags