Tabroom.com

The Ed Long Invitational at The Hockaday School

2023 — Dallas, TX/US

Novice CX Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jamil Alibhai Greenhill School

Bennett Applbaum St. Mark's School of Texas

Siddarth Bidare St. Mark's School of Texas

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:41 AM EDT

St. Mark's '24

Tech > Truth, I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted and not harmful (racist, sexist, etc.)

bidaresid@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

add both to the chain

Speaker Point Scale:

29.8 - 30 - should reach late elims
29.4 - 29.7 - should clear
28.9 - 29.2 - should go 3-3 or 2-4
28.5 - 28.8 - serious errors in strategy

+ 0.1 speaker points if you open source ev - if you are a novice and your top teams open source this also counts

How I evaluate rounds:

even though this is novice - I will flow the rounds and try to evaluate the round with the least judge intervention
I try to avoid reading evidence but will have to if the debaters don't resolve the central questions for me

Argument prefs:

I am fine for policy and K, but I am usually on the policy side of these debates.

DA:

I think they are especially strong on this topic.

like 70% of my 1nr's have been on the econ DA or ptx DA

CP:

I prefer you go for competition over theory - ie. against Burden Sharing QPQ - defend that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive is better than going for conditions CP bad.

PDCP > Intrinsic Perm > "delay/sequencing" perm

I will decide in favor of one sides interp

I dislike middle-ground interps because I find it hard to weigh the affs imaginary extinction impact against the negs in round violence impact - you can still go for it though

if you are reading high theory explain it well

I personally think fairness > clash, but I have gone for both and am fine for either

K affs:

I am bad for KvK debates (apart from cap K)

When I'm neg we exclusively go for T USFG (unless the 1ar or 2ac mishandles something else) so that should tell you what I think about K affs

Condo thoughts -

I have no strong thoughts - if you are Aff make sure you central offense is developed before the 2ar

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

^I vehemently disagree with every word of this paradigm. Making mocking references to it will certainly earn you higher speaker points. You should use it to construct my argumentative ideology by taking every premise presented within it and assuming that I believe the exact opposite.

Sua Cho Coppell 9th

Anish Guddati St. Mark's School of Texas

Maya Jagsi Greenhill School

Ania Jalori Coppell 9th

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 4:53 AM CDT

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

Updated for 2023-2024 topic
30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

****read here first*****
I still really love to judge and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

***I believe that framing/labeling arguments and paper flowing is crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Some things that influence my decision making process

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

6. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

7. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should judge the debate.

8. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.

9. Speaker points--If you are not preferring me you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

10. I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.

Logistical Notes--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

Ashrit Manduva St. Mark's School of Texas

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:02 AM CDT

St. Mark's '24

dearashrit@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

pls add both to the chain

Be kind and have fun. Being rude/offensive will dramatically lower your speaks and make me annoyed.

How I evaluate rounds:

I evaluate the round first using the flow and judge instruction.
Tech > Truth, but true/logical/clever arguments are much easier to win than generic strategies or tricks. That being said, I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted and not harmful (racist, sexist, etc.). Any of my below preferences can be changed by good debating and I will try to intervene as little as possible.
I strike off new arguments made in the rebuttals unless reciprocal with other new answers made (if the block makes a new impact, the 1AR can impact turn it, read defense to it, etc.). However, make sure to point out new arguments or give a justification for making a new argument.
I won't decide rounds based on things that happened before the pairing came out.

Argument prefs:

I've debated largely policy for my career so far, so take that as you will.

DA:

Zero risk is possible but unlikely.

I like good DA debates - the more specific the better, but about 30% of my 1NR's on the CJR/Water topics were politics, so I understand that generic DAs are useful.

utilize turns case and line-by-line 2AC/1AR arguments as much as possible

best affirmative answers are usually pressing the internal links

Topicality:

Default is competing interps. Predictable definitions probably matter more than a limited topic, but limited topics are good. Preparation and clash are good and limited topics tend to make that easier.

Non-resolutional procedurals are almost always not voting issues.

CP:

Again these are good for me

Cheaty counterplans - depending on how cheaty it is - the more sympathetic I am for cheaty perms or theory.

I prefer you go for competition over theory - ie. against Burden Sharing QPQ - going for an intrinsic perm is better than going for conditions CPs bad.

Probably better than most for condo bad, usually in novice/JV 3 counterplans is already pushing it.

I'm probably less familiar with your literature, so examples and specific explanation is very helpful.

Specific links are always better than generic topic links, but at worst please contextualize generic links to the aff. Affs should probably get to weigh their plan and K's of fiat are not my favorite. Alt debating is usually pretty weak for the neg, so try to give examples and be as specific as possible. For the aff, make your plan matter.

For both sides, make framework matter. Tell me what framework implicates and how I should evaluate different parts of the flow if you win/lose framework.

K affs v FW:

Better for the neg in these debates as my predisposition is that teams should defend the resolution on the affirmative.

Debate is probably a game and fairness is probably good. That being said, debate can still have material impacts on us as people, but you have to explain why voting aff matters. Clash is a good way to access aff offense for the neg. The best way to win my ballot as the aff is to impact turn the neg's model and do impact calc.

K v K

Not experienced in these kinds of debates.

The team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus will probably win my ballot. As for the aff, the perm seems logical to me, but the neg can definitely beat it through strong link explanation.

Impact Turns -

Also enjoy these - read good/new cards because evidence tends to matter a lot in these debates

Speaker Point Scale: I probably give above-average speaks - particularly to novices.

I know this is likely your first or second year in debate, so as long as you're trying your best and are kind to your opponents I will be very forgiving.

29.6 - 30 - should reach late elims
29.2 - 29.5 - should clear
28.7 - 29.1 - should be close to clearing
28.2 - 28.6 - didn't like the strategy

Other speaker point things:

+0.1 speaker points if you open source on the wiki

+0.2 speaker points if I can clearly tell you are trying to do line by line instead of reading your varsity team members' blocks.

Ella Ou-Yang Greenhill School

Sahil Patel Coppell High School

Liam Seaward St. Mark's School of Texas

Ahsan Tahirkheli St. Mark's School of Texas

Skyler Walker Caddo Mills

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 2:45 AM CDT

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

Harry Wang St. Mark's School of Texas

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:58 PM CDT

Affiliations: St. Mark's 2024

paradigm from Maxwell Chuang

Email Chain: harrywangdebate@gmail.com. and smdebatedocs@gmail.com. Please make the subject of the chain relevant. ie. include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

TLDR:

-Tech>Truth

-If i cannot explain what I am voting for by the end of the round I will not vote on it.

-Won't vote on out of round issues

-I will read evidence if a team if asked to after the round, but in round explanation of the evidence >

-Ask if you have questions about something not on my paradigm

Online:

-Camera on = good

-Don't start your speech if my camera is off

Topicality:

-T debates are good

-Evidence quality matters

Counterplans:

-Biased for the negative on most counterplan theory, but the affirmative can definitely convince me otherwise

-The affirmative should be certain and immediate

-Tell me to judge-kick the counterplan

-Will vote for any counterplan given better technical execution by the negative

-PICs are good

-Word PICs also good

-Process counterplans great

-Advantage counterplans good

Ks:

-Not well-versed in high theory literature

-Well-versed in cap, good for security, etc.

-Long overviews make me sad

Disadvantages:

-Taking a generic disadvantage and contextualizing it to the 1AC is strategic

-Turns case is awesome and is even better with spin

-However, that only matters if you win a substantial risk of the disadvantage

-Link uniqueness is important

K Affs/T USFG:

-If your strategy is not to defend the resolution traditionally, you should go for a counter-interp that provides the negative a benefit from negating the 1AC

-I personally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be convinced otherwise

Theory:

-Neg biased on most theory

-Aff theory: usually hailmary and bad

-condo is good, same with 50 state

Speaks:

-Will unmute to clear 3 times in one speech before going to play league

-being funny/making jokes = higher speaks

-mentioning league = +.1 speaks

-cx: you do you

Random:

-Yes, you can insert rehighlightings

-I will protect the 2NR

-No risk exists

-Good formatting gets bonus speaks, not making the email chain correctly gets less speaks

-Clipping = L

-Open Source = +.1 speaks if you let me know

Login to Tabroom

The Ed Long Invitational at The Hockaday School

2023 — Dallas, TX/US

Novice CX Debate Paradigm List

Judges