Tabroom.com

The Dulles Classic

2023 — Sugar Land, TX/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Joshua Douglass Adegoke Hire

Last changed on Thu July 11, 2024 at 7:08 AM EDT

Contact Info

Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)

Pronouns: He/Him

Currently: One of the assistant coaches at Dulles HS and I Coach a few other kids.

Background (Updated For 2023-2024 Season)

I am a current Sophmore at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program.I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.

I have taught at camps such as TDC, NSD, & VBI

*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (pretty much any K literature) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.

Conflicts

Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS

Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI

TLDR: What I don't like

1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle

2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.

3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.

LD & CX Specific

DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)

This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:

[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward

[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address

[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.

[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.

I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.

Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.

Kritiks & TFW/Topicality

K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean

K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L

Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.

*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place

**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.

Phil

I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.

Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).

Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.

Tricks (LD Specific)

I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.

[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low

[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue

[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is

[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.

[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).

Round Logistics

[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card

[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.

[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.

General Strategy:

I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.

Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.

If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament

If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking

If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed

If you are 29.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect

Personal Belief:

I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.

Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571

Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

World Schools Specific

A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens

B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs

C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.

Public Forum Specific

Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.

If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.

If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.

Speaking Events (Specific)

Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.

Congress Specific

Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)

Asad Ahmed Hire

Last changed on Wed June 26, 2024 at 11:55 PM CDT

Updated for 24/25 school year

Hi! I'm Asad! Pls just call me by my name - for some rzn i hate when ppl call me "judge"

For questions and email chain -- asad.ahmed0987@gmail.com

Abt me: Did LD, qualled, currently the assistant coach at kempner, coached and helped a few ppl here and there

First and foremost, debate on the circuit is a game - don't take anything personal

Some things I like

1. being funny

2. Bring me a diet coke = +.5 speaks

3. Saying "its game over" in rd

4. Setting up the docs b4 rd/ pre-flow

5. asking questions b4 so u dont lose

So you came here to win my ballot? Then pls read carefully

These are things I find important and how to win the round

1. Warrant out your args - explain it and do it well

2. WEIGH - for the love of god

3. Signpost - if i am lost on the flow i will stop typing and then good luck!

4. slow down on analytics and taglines - my speed is decent so emphasize on the important stuff

5. do the work/explain for me - literally write out my ballot bc it makes it easier

I promise if you do all of this you 100% have won the rd

The stuff that matters but rlly doesnt

Speaks

- Tbh 99% of the time its a 29 for the L and 29.5 for the W

- Sit or stand, idc - literally had someone eat in their rd tbh could care less but pls share :)

Speed

- I'm decent but slow down on analytics/taglines/anything important

- see me not typing? ur going too fast

- u can always ask what is comfy b4 rd - i will demonstrate what im comfy with

The nitty gritty

(1-2)K's

- familiar with most common lit

- psycho k's annoy me - run at ur own risk

- my specialization is in islamo so identity k's are good

(1-2)Shells

- line by line is best

- pls make sure there is weight to it especially for TVK or TVT debates

- i dont default to anything

(1)LARP

- my grandma can judge larp and she dont event speak english

- cp's must be competitive

(5/strike)Phil/Trix

- run at ur own risk - my head hurts trying to comprehend these deb8s (im getting old)

- probably the worst judge for this

Carmen Amaya Duchesne Academy Of The Sacred Heart

Sreeharshini Ambatipudi Dulles High School None

Ebenezer Appiah Hire

Last changed on Thu July 18, 2024 at 10:00 AM CDT

hey everyone, I'm ebenezer and hopefully I get the chance to judge you if you're reading my paradigm. I go by he/him pronouns and come from a pure debate background (sorry to any performers I may judge)

Things that make my job hard:

Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents
Not proving your arguments (not enough to give a basic claim to something - reasons must be explicit and proven to a point where they met some burden(s) of proof)

In framing debates, I expect warranted reasons for why I should prefer one interpretation over another. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening. For the sake of a clean round and the least intervening decision possible, I highly recommend you do this

In debates where things are not explicitly proven, I'll assume the most relevant arguments for both sides are true and make the comparison of what argument wins (pre-requisite, scale of impact, duration of impact, etc.)

Things that make my job easy:

Identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those areas.
Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more and are more likely than your opposition, especially in debates where there are shared impacts which tends to happen a lot
Weigh impacts if they are differentiated. Note that weighing at the impact lvl must concede the warrant lvl (so the argument does happen) and instead engage in the end result of the argument. Rarely do I see impact weighing or even link/warrant lvl weighing, instead I tend to see rebuttal on the warrant lvl (often not sufficient enough rebuttal) and neglect for the impact lvl.
Be strategic. I'd likely caution against extending an unwarranted framing debate for example especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that left field, I'll buy the ref as soon as it is introduced in the round - doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning toward it. Don't overcompensate! Good judge direction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side
General rule of thumb: always fill in gaps for why and how something happens. don’t tell me X happens in a vacuum and immediately expect me to believe that it’s true, I must know why that claim is true, why it is exclusive to your side, and quantifiably why that thing is good or bad or morally why that thing is good or bad.

A combination of the aforementioned stuff is the best way to get a decision you agree with. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that we all never like but necessary if the work isn't done in round

I'm not at all authoritarian when it comes to style. I had stylistic challenges of my own so I understand why a heavy focus on style can have an unattended effect of discrediting good debating. If I can flow it and you signpost you'll do fine. arg quality > rhetoric. ideally, the best speeches have all 3 but my pivot is more towards content and strategy.

Principled args are fun to see but they need to be both extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll have a spot on my flow of a principle that was well established but poorly leveraged against other arguments. all and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun

if you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com or eappiah@regis.edu

Rohan Arulkumar Hire

nic baez Dulles High School

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 6:49 AM CDT

I am a current policy debater at Barbers Hill High School

I'm a flex debater so run whatever you want it's your round I just decide who win's (unless it's racist, sexist, ableist, etc..). Because obviouslly

Skip down to the ld section for my pref thing but most of the policy stuff still applys

Overall having a fun debate experience is the ultimate goal so strive to do so, and good luck!

For email chains, my email is nbdebate06@gmail.com

If I feel as though you are stealing prep, I will warn you first and then penalize you if it continues. Please don't steal prep, it's pretty annoying.

IDC abt being post rounded I get it just don't be dumb abt it

Also speed, go as fast as you want just put me on the chain - When i say go as fast as you want just make it to where you are still clear odds are i'll understand you but i mean you'll probably sound better if you aren't mumbling every word in your speech I'll also say clear i doubt i'll need to but i will- Just maybe slow down a wee bit in rebuttals and online

Pref short cut --- (IK this doesn't apply rn but I don't wanna do it next year because I'm lazy :))

Policy ---1

K (basic)--- 1

K (identity)---2-3

K aff --- 2-3

K (pomo) --- 4-5

Phil & tricks --- lol

Tech-----x-----Truth

Voting for policy------X----Voting for the K

CondoX----------No condo

Overviews------X----LBL

Fairness is definitely an impact----X-------Fairness is not an impact

"Neg on presumption"X----------K affs that do nothing

Policy rounds ----X---- K rounds

Breaking New X-----------Repeat same round for the whole season

Debate good--X---------Debate bad (the activity)

Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the community)

Have fun in round--X--------Debate NPC

ClashX----------Cowardice

Judge ---------x- Nic

Don't make me intervein in the round if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize or touch on it and loses anyways, why wouldn't I punish the 2AR harder for fumbling? and etc.

--- Online Debate

I'm fine with your camera being off when you speak just turn it on at the beginning.

Slow down a bit no need to run a dozen or so off

I would prefer we do email chain at all times but if it is imperative that we need to do file share then so be it this goes for in person too

T/FW

Explain to me what abuse has occurred or explain why I should vote against a non-t aff

I really like these debates i feel like the aff should be built around T/FW

I believe the aff should have really good impact turns to procedural fairness and topic education if you want to win my ballot on the aff in these rounds have good DA’s on T/FW

For the neg odds are they aren’t T so go for procedural fairness & topic education and why it matters so much.

I lean more neg when it comes to TVA’s so if you want to win a T/FW debate in front of me a TVA would be much appreciated

T
Try and have a definition contextual to the aff

Answer extra T or fx T because i'll vote on it if you drop it and have competing interps but i'm not going to do the work for you so call it out in the block

DA's

I love good disad debates but the thing I look for most in a debate is the link debate and the disad turns case. Don't be afraid to run generic disadvantages; however, your success with those arguments is entirely dependent on your ability to contextualize the link for me. After the link is clear, provide me with a tool for comparing your impacts to the affirmative's impacts. I'm not picky about how impact calculus is done, but it needs to have a turns case arg if you want to win the ballot because I feel like the turns case argument is really underrated.

Please have all parts of the DA it would really suck if you have no internal link :(

Have good uniqueness that's up to date

Don't have generic links to redistribution this topic is way better then NATO for DA's so have a good link.

Counter plans

While case-specific counter plans are more interesting for me to listen to, I don't evaluate them more favorable than generic counter plans. Just contextualize your generic solvency evidence if you choose that route.

Don't assume I kick the CP (or anything for that matter) from the flow unless you instruct me to. My flow will look exactly how you tell me for it to look.

If you are running a PIC, be prepared for a theory debate and the perm debate. I don't default a certain way most of the time, but I think both of those arguments are important barriers for you to overcome if you want to win my ballot. I do however err aff when it comes to obscure pics of the aff because I feel like it’s just unfair and impossible to predict.

If I didn't cover anything feel free to ask me before the round! I don't have much to say, because I feel like CP's shouldn't really be controversial.

Also go to the theory section for how I look at that on CP's

Run'em

just paint a picture for me to understand what the world of the alt looks like

links of omissions/thesis links are cool just say how the alt changes it, i prefer you also have links descriptive to the aff and pull lines from there cards that's how you'll win me on the link debate.

Also don't be afraid to kick an alt and go for link turns case because if you're having alt solvency deficits your best way out of it is to just go for link turns case.

Also I know for novice rounds you probably won't be running Baudrillard but if you running high theory K just let me know what it is and what it means i more a traditional K judge(Cap, Security, AfroPess/Wilderson, Imperialism, And so on)

Please say why the alt solves the link their is never enough work done on this for most of the time.

Theory

I'll evaluate any flow you put on the page besides ASPEC/OSPEC unless it's to get a link to a DA but if it's something abscure that you are trying to win on i will audiby yawn at you

I lean aff on process cp's, consult cp's, 50 states, and multi actor fiat. I lean Neg on international fiat & condo

As I said above I think condo's not really a great argument but i mean if the neg his running like 8 conditional advocates Then i would have no problem giving an aff ballot if they don't fumble

Case

I'm always ready for a good case debate and i'm cool with any case turns etc.

I love case debate where the 2NR goes for a case turn, I feel like a case turn debate goes really underutilized it would be cool if we have a lot of offense on case to go for in the 2NR

But if you want to win my ballot easily you need to be doing internal link debate on the aff. If you win that odds are you’re getting my ballot.

Have new case defense or at least up to date stuff

In debate now i feel like we don't spend enough time on case like the 2nr only doing 30 seconds of it i get how if you are winning it you feel like you should go for more offense but i mean make sure you get to all the key points on the case flow

Misc.

I don't care if you cuss etc.

I start at 28.5 speaks and I'll go up or down depending on strategy, speaking, and argument development.

I have been told I am rude in debate and where I feel some of that is right I feel like some of it is misinterpreted let's just try to have a fun round where we don't get a heated round

Please be more than a debate robot I want people to engage in the activity and inject it with there personality unless you're boring then just stick to be a robot.

LD:

I don't necessarily like trad debate but i'm cool with wtv you run just

Most of the policy stuff from above still applies just do you tho

don't run tricks though because i'll most likely sit in the back laughing and then vote you down because i hate tricks, but they're funny

PF:

lol

Please just clash like it's one of the only things i care about and want in a PF debate

Also have good offense and defense

I really don't judge PF that often so just try and have judge instruction for the love of god (or wtv you believe in)

Zachary Baker Hire

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 12:40 PM CDT

Email:bakerzachary0@gmail.com

Truth over tech: I don't think abusing link chains makes you a good debater. I'm willing to buy more abstract arguments to an extent I have solid general knowledge of most things political. The more complicated your argument the more clear your link chain should be. That being said as long as your argument isn't based around a lie or fatal mistake on your part I still require the other team to do the work and refute it.

Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.

If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.

Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've yet to vote on a theory argument. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win.I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.

Also finally I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)

In LD: Value criterion is extremely important to me. I need to understand how different contentions/cards tie into your value criterion and why your VC outweighs.

In PF: I value more of a big picture voters speech than a line by line, the speech is 2 minutes so if you drop unimportant parts of the debate here you can win. With that said in PF I really prefer slower speaking even more than LD

Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't.

Platform/Interp: Delivery is critical especially for jokes, practice practice practice. If your unsure of how you are saying a joke ask someone before giving it to me as a judge.Moreover in Interp please don't scream/yell super loud especially if you are standing right next to me.

Karina Barbosa Westside High School None

Carol Beard Clear Springs High School

Chris Bian Dulles High School

Bonnie Bonnette Elkins High School

Andrew Burgos Elkins High School

Benjamin Campagna Westside High School

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 10:19 AM CDT

Legal Studies teacher and Debate Coach at Westside High School

Email: benjamin.campagna@houstonisd.org. You can email me for an explanation of these paradigms or with debate questions in general.

As with all aspects of our lives, our lived experiences influence our biases, priorities, and preferences. This is true for judging paradigms as well as anything else. I have been involved with debate in one capacity or another for over 20 years, first as a high school debater who did both LD and CX, then as a mentor and judge for many years after that, and finally as a debate coach since 2017. I am also a practicing attorney and a teacher. Ultimately, I believe that debate serves three main purposes: 1) education, 2) competition, and 3) fun. My judging paradigms flow from those purposes and my experiences in both the academic and "real" worlds.

I am a tabula rasa judge. I believe that debate is a curricular game and the participants should use whatever legal tools are at their disposal to try to win. Therefore, I believe in tech over truth (but logical inconsistency in argumentation is bad tech, as described below). Tell me how you want to play the game, and I will adapt to you.

Keep in mind, though, that I believe that games are only educational, fun, and fair when everyone plays by the same rules. Unlike most games, the rules for debate are flexible, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I expect all of the participants in the round to understand the handbook/hard rules and the norms common for whatever circuit we're in (HUDL, UIL, TFA, NSDA, etc.), and if you are arguing that the rules or norms should be different than expected, you need to be convincing. If the debaters in the round do not convincingly argue why we should be playing by different rules, I will default to the standard rules of the game and the typical judging paradigms (framework arguments and impact calculus). I will vote on anything if the team can clearly explain why I should care about that issue or give weight to that argument, so there are no arguments I will refuse to consider. However, there are some arguments that will have an easier or harder time moving the needle for me, as described below.

Before diving into specific argument preferences, a brief note about speaking style. I view debate as, first and foremost, an educational activity for the participants in the round. The main skill I think debaters should be learning is how to effectively persuade a third party observing an argument. It's not enough that the third party thinks you execute technical argumentation well; it's more important that the third party understands you and believes what you say. Therefore, I take the evaluation of speaker points seriously. I am fine with speed and can follow spreading, but I ask that you give detailed roadmaps and follow them well, slow down to emphasize your taglines, and tell me where you are on the flow when you move on to a new argument.

POLICY

In cross-examination debate, I ultimately want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a net-positive to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. A K-Aff will need to advocate for a strong alternative that relates to the resolution.

The Negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative advocacy (solvency deficit, disadvantages, counterplans, Kritiks, etc.). I am especially persuaded by impact calculus in deciding whether or not the Affirmative plan is worth implementing.

Burdens:

Generally speaking, I care a lot about burdens. If both sides make good arguments and no one argues why the other side's arguments are bad (lack of competition), then Aff wins because Neg has not upheld its burden of clash. I don't care how much better the Neg's position is, if the Affirmative still looks like a net benefit over the status quo at the end of the round, they win. On the other hand, if both sides tear each other apart and by the end of the round no one has made any good arguments, then Neg wins because the Aff has not upheld their burden of proof. It doesn't matter how bad Neg's arguments are, Aff can't win if it doesn't support a position that is better than the status quo at the end of the round.

Analytics:

Obviously, certain claims require carded evidence, and I will usually weigh carded evidence over contradicting analytics. However, I am absolutely fine with arguments based on logic and analysis. Only empirical claims that cannot be reasonably derived from common knowledge or an analysis of the evidence that has been presented in the round need to be carded.

DAs:

Most rounds are decided in the impact calculus, so be sure to emphasize this in the round. Explain why I should care about what you're saying and why the other side's position is less weighty than yours. I care less that you won the DA and more about what it means for my ballot that you won the DA. Many teams have won arguments and still lost the round because I didn't think that them winning that particular argument was very important to the outcome of the round.

In weighing advantages and disadvantages, uniqueness carries a lot of weight with me, especially on political DAs. Convince me that we're on the brink and it's the plan that pushes us over the edge.

Please avoid logically-inconsistent DAs. For example, it's hard for me to reconcile that the plan crashes the economy but also helps the president win reelection.

CPs:

For a counterplan, the Negative has the burden of proving that the counterplan is a net-positive over both the status quo and the Affirmative plan.

I am generally fine with any number of conditional counterplans; in the real world, if someone comes up with seven alternatives to a plan that are mutually exclusive with that plan, defending any one of those alternatives is a valid reason to not implement the plan. If it turns out that none of those alternatives was good, but the plan itself is worse than the status quo, that's also a valid reason to not implement the plan. I don't have a problem with the Neg team making both arguments. However, I am not a fan of topical counterplans as I believe that encroaches on Aff ground and blurs the burdens discussed above.

Ks:

If I am convinced of the framework/role-of-the-ballot argument, then I will weigh the Kritik above any other consideration (except theory, see below). If I am not convinced of the framework argument, then I will weigh the Kritik like a disadvantage along with the other advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, don't rush past the framework argument, it's an important part of winning the K.

The K team has the burden of proof. I think most Ks are susceptible to permutation ("do the plan on the way to reforming the system"). Unlike counterplans, I am generally not persuaded by conditional Ks: if you think the status quo is so broken that it warranted a departure from traditional debate and the topic we came here to discuss, then I want you to commit to it. If you also run an argument contradicting your K, then I doubt your advocacy and you should lose the K.

I am not in favor of any argument that precludes a debater from making an argument because of that debater's identity. "You can't say that, you're [whatever identity]!" is not a winning argument. Also, it is your burden to explain your position in a way that your opponents and judge can understand. If you argue that your opponent (or judge) just doesn't understand (or care about) your K because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, or any other personal quality, then you have failed in your advocacy and you will not win that K.

Theory:

We've all had those moments playing games that devolve into an argument over the rules of the game. At the end of that game, people are miserable and no one feels good about winning or losing. That's how I feel about theory arguments in debate. Theory obviously goes toward the fairness of the game itself, and a successful theory argument is my highest priority in the round. However, I don't like frivolous theory arguments and I will be heavily biased against you if you argue that something is abusive when it is generally considered within the usual norms of the circuit. I won't do it for you, but I am easily swayed that frivolous theory is a reverse voting issue. That doesn't mean a theory team can't win, but it does mean you better bring your A-game.

I will vote on topicality if the Affirmative plan is clearly abusive or burdensome for the Negative or outside the scope of what the resolution is most commonly understood to mean. I am almost never persuaded by topicality arguments when the Negative was clearly prepped for the Affirmative case, or when there are very few reasonable Affirmative plans that can be topical under the Negative's proposed definitions.

Conditionality is generally fine for CPs, but not Ks (see those sections above). I'm not going to do the work for you: you still have to argue condo-good or condo-bad. But I'm much more sympathetic to condo-bad on Ks than CPs.

I am fine with new arguments in either second constructive speech (i.e., I don't consider "new in the two" to be a problem generally), EXCEPT that I am not really ok with new advocacies (new plan text, counterplans, new Ks) after the 1NC. New theory arguments should be brought up at the first available opportunity after the violation occurred. If the 1AC was problematic, abusive, or non-topical, that should be the first thing I hear about in the 1NC; I'm going to have a hard time buying it in the 2NC if you spent the 1NC arguing solvency and disadvantages.

Basically, save theory for when it's necessary; it's a scalpel for cutting out those cancerous debaters and debate tactics, not an axe for bludgeoning fair opponents.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

The spirit of everything I said above about burdens, analytics, Kritiks, and theory also apply generally to LD. Specific to LD:

Framework:

I believe that the framework debate is at the heart of LD, and therefore am especially receptive to arguments linking back to the framework. I can be convinced that something else is more important, but few ever try. I also feel like many debaters don't use their framework enough in their argumentation. In LD specifically, the framework debate is more important than the impact calculus. Please spend some time here!

Plans:

The existence or non-existence of a plan will not sway me one way or the other. There are strategic advantages and disadvantages to running a plan, but neither side has a burden to present or defend a plan. I therefore do not consider the existence of a plan to be a voting issue. A strong theory argument on this issue could change my mind, but it will be an uphill battle for whoever is making that argument.

Jon-Carlo Canezo St John's School

Araceli Casasola Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:59 AM CDT

(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.

Isaac Chacko Dulles High School

Lakshmi Chandran William P. Clements High School

Isaac Chao Heights High School

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 6:37 PM CDT

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

Policy: 1
T/Theory: 1-2
Phil: 2
Kritik (identity): 2
Kritik (pomo): 3
Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
Tech > Truth
I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

I default to competing interpretations.
I default to no RVIs.
You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
"If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
I default to epistemic confidence.
Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
I don't disclose speaks.
I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:

I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.

If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Julia Chen Sugar Land SpiderSmart None

Joshua Cheng Dulles High School

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 5:26 AM CDT

Hey, I'm Josh (he/him). 3rd year at Dulles High School. 3 years LD, 1 year policy (alongside LD). As such, most of my views on debate have been influenced by people like Eric Schwerdfeger (mostly) and Patrick Fox.

- TFA CX '24

joshcheng250@gmail.com, add dulles.ld.db8@gmail.com to the email chain as well.

Racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, etc. all mean anything between dropped speaks to stopping the round. If someone asks for accommodations, please try your best to fulfill them. Basically, don't be rude. Treat people like humans. Thanks.
I'm okayish for some sort of speed - maybe 75-80% of the fastest debater on circuit would be a comfortable pace. Please give me time between flows.
Write my ballot. Judge instruction makes my life easier and makes me think less, which is always a good thing. Layering and weighing should be obvious by the end of your last speech.
I'll be as tab as possible. Tech > Truth
Be nice to novices, maybe try to use the round to help them learn? (as in I will drop speaks if you're making the round a nightmare or being a jerk to them. Make it something they can learn from and I'll give you more speaks)

As of rn there is no world where I'm getting on a pref sheet lol... but if it helps

Shortcuts

K (generally) - 1

K (identity) - 2

LARP/Policy - 2

T/Th (substantive) - 3

Th (friv) - 5

Tricks - 5

Updated for the MS State! '23 -

General

You'll probably see my face change a bit. This probably has little indication of how the round is going, but you can almost certainly tell whether I vibe with the arg or not. Maybe use it as a speaks metric? Do as you like.

Presumption flips... neg, in most cases. I can be convinced pretty easily it flips aff. If the 2N is a separate advocacy, flips aff. Permissibility flips neg.

No judgekick - unless warranted.

In the honor of making rounds feel less like debate bots, drop me a song rec either before round or play it during cross if your opponents are chill with it. +.5 speaks for all you kids who have life in you at tournaments. Y'all the best.

K's (aff or neg)

Mostly am running these - they can be really strategic, but, please, actually know what you're reading and how it interacts with other theories of power. When ships pass in the night because neither team knows what each advocacy is it makes it a kinda sucky judging experience. Comfortable with stuff like cap, set col, security, etc. Very open to voting on pomo, but definitely explain a ton - the better I know the theory, the easier it is to get a vote - ask me before round. Identity is chill, just know what scholarship/space you want to promote well.

In general: Please know what your case does, and if it doesn't do anything, be ready to defend why that's a good thing. For affs, explain why the aff is good enough to be read on aff and why the resolution is a bad stasis. SSD and TVA are very compelling - shut them down for any shot at winning vs T.

Props to you if you can run a K and explain it passably :) (Props can be a pretty significant speaks boost in some cases.) Do with that as you will. Note - if your entire explanation is just skimming the tags of your cards I'm gonna combust. And so will speaks.

On the flip side - check with your opponent first if they're good with speed or K stuff. If you're reading it against someone who's gonna be completely lost... I'll give you the ballot but speaks probably won't be great. Make the round educational pls.

LARP/Policy

I'd like to think I'm not terrible at judging this - probably going to be the bulk of my rounds for a while. Weigh case, win framing, etc. If you're going for this consistently, please have strong links - it sucks to vote on 0.1% risk of link to whatever DA or CP you're going for. For CP's - please prove competition. It's been a year and the Dulles coaching squad still trolls Vishnu for "not understanding CP competition" - I dunno if he did or not, but, yeah, don't die to the perm.

Phil

I'll vote on it. Give me reasons to prefer contextualized to the actual theory instead of vague consequentialism indicts and the like. Explain more obscure positions and why it's uniquely necessary to good moral judgment (or why there is no such thing??) TJFs kinda silly. A few boosted speaks for this one too.

T/Th

I'm definitely a much better judge for T and substantive theory than frivolous shells. I have no plans on voting on santa hat theory in the near future, but if you win it... you win it, I guess. Topicality shells need more than one silly limits thing, if they make an I meet after you read a disad that links to their aff, I'm gonna be inclined to buy it. Probably not the best judge for 1AR restarts and 1NC's with 4+ shells, but if that's how you roll, I'm not one to stop you.

I'll assume DTD, CI, and no RVI for all shells unless explained otherwise. Defense on standards and I meets are not enough to win RVIs - read a counterinterp if you plan on going for it.

Tricks

Please don't. Like, if you can conceivably win any other way I would enjoy it so much more. If you absolutely have a burning desire to read your spikes, then sure, but unless they actually can't come up with anything to take it out, you probably won't be getting the ballot or amazing speaks.

Speaks:

I'll default to 28.5 for most circuit/flow rounds - [Both sides will probably enjoy their speaks a lot more if the round is techy... I'm just sayin'...]

Expect around a 28 for most lay rounds. Up or down probably reflects how likely I think it is you'll break.

Below 27 means you've done something bad. Debate what you debate well and I'll reward it as such.

Judge instruction please. I am a simple man with very little brainpower. If you make me think less there's a much smaller chance I accidentally screw something up on the flow or miss the tiny weighing claim you made in the middle of a massive chunk of analytics in the 1AR.

Richard Cheng Dulles High School

akhila chikkula Dulles High School

Sivadinarayana Chinta Elkins High School None

Deanne Christensen The Woodlands High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:04 AM CDT

I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.

General info for all debate—

1) no speed - this is a communication event

2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.

4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.

Specifics

LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.

CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.

Brandon Collier Hire

Last changed on Fri October 6, 2023 at 4:36 PM CDT

brandon.collier07@gmail.com for flashing / inquires

I go by "Kk", not the name on my Tabroom lol. I keep it there so Tabroom can keep track. If you call me by it I won't be mad or correct you, but I'd appreciate if you referred to me otherwise. Also, you don't have to call me judge, you can just use my name. I'm chill.

Pronouns: They/Them (please respect this lol)

Experience – 4yrs Speech & Debate -- 2 1/2 yrs CX & 1 1/2 yrs Congress/Extemp. 3yrs judging experience including UIL 5A+6A districs.

For LDers - I prefer traditional LD. Not Policy based LD. You can run policy based, but seeing as I was predominantly a Policy debater and predominantly a Policy judge, it will be under far more intense scrutiny than if judged by someone who had not done Policy.

Note - Most of this applies to solely CX, but you will get some value out of reading it as an LD, PF, Congress etc debater. Specifically 'Speaking Style', 'Quality vs. Quantity', 'CX (Questioning)', and 'Flashing'.

CX PARADIGM

Approach: Policymaker – This will explain itself more if you read my full paradigm, but essentially: I like advocating for some sort of policy. Affs with plans, negs with CPs, etc are all good in my book. Don’t expect to win just by running a Kritik.

Specific Issues:

Speaking Style –

You can speak fast if you prefer, but overt spreading (the gasping thing) is something I dislike. As long as you are clear and can make your point without me having to read along the entire speech, I’m fine with speed. Getting loud at points is fine, but I don’t like screaming just for the sake of screaming; use intonation and volume with a purpose.

I flow like someone who has never seen a sheet of paper, a pen, or any electronic device built in the last 30 years, so don't take me writing or not writing as a sign if you're speaking too fast. If I think you are unintelligible (or don't like your point), I'll most likely just stop typing, writing, everything and just sit and stare at you. It is up to you, as the debater, to debate with purpose and inherent value, and not try to overflow us or your opponents with arguments and speed.

I think you need to be able to make your point without being condescending as well – if you are rude, make snarky comments, etc. towards your opponents, your speaker points will be bombed, regardless if they call you out or not.

Please signpost and give roadmaps. Roadmaps can be off the clock before your speech.

Topicality –

As long as aff has some relation to the resolution I’m mostly unbothered by topicality. If it’s something actually specific or the aff is genuinely wildly nontopical, then run it. Running a generic T just to run one is lame; If you have to run generic arguments I’d prefer if you just didn’t run a generic T at all and ran something like a basic DA instead; it provides more substance for the round and gives me something to actually vote on.

For the neg – if you run T and say that you have no ground inside the round but are running multiple offs and/or almost any oncase with decent relevancy and links then that standard/voter will be heavily scrutinized. (If you believe you can make a strong case with it, go for it, but if not I’ll be side-eyeing it on my flow the entire round.)

Lastly, I believe your T shell must include standards and voters. I don’t care if you personally believe they aren’t necessary, if they aren’t included in a championship/varsity CX Topicality shell I will most likely not evaluate it. If they aren’t introduced in the same speech as the T shell but brought in later I will heavily scrutinize that as well.

Disadvantages –

Obviously, DAs are fine and you can basically do whatever with them. Be specific with links, UQ and everything of course. I prefer if you focus on urgent bodies (impacts that can have a realistic and tangible effect sooner rather than later) as opposed to big sticks (I’m looking at you, nuclear war). Of course, you can run a big stick impact, but my preference is on unique impacts. They make the clash more interesting. Make nuke/extinction work well and I will vote for it, though!

Counterplans –

I like CPs that are executed well. As long as you prove that your CP does it better and the aff has no way of perming it then it will be a large voting factor. CPs can be topical or nontopical – I only bring this up as some judges have an issue with it. State net benefits clearly, if any (and I prefer if there are).

Something else to note is that I’m okay with contradictory neg positions as long as you adequately explain them. If you run a CP that triggers the DA just like the aff, maybe don’t run it or have a way to avoid the DA.

Theory –

I like theory when it’s used in conjunction with what you’re already running. Only in extreme cases should you throw out all of your arguments and run with your theory arg.

On framework – Framework of the aff is what is inherently valued in the round unless neg runs a FW that they prove is better. FW should not simply state how to value the round, provide theory and research as to why your FW is important and relevant to your plant/the resolution. I love FW args if they are executed well by both parties.

Kritiks –

are an argument. If you run a generic kritik that can be applied to any affirmative, I probably won’t value it highly - use your links and uq please. If you run a kritik and there is no alternative or your alt is to ‘reject the aff’, I definitely will not value it highly.

Other Issues:

Conditionality –

I don’t care. If you make a good case for condo bad then I’ll listen to it, but I quite literally have zero preference. The only thing I will ever stand being called tabula rasa for.

Quality vs. Quantity –

Like most judges, I will value quality much higher than quantity. Don’t try to win just by overwhelming your opponents with 12 generic DAs. As an aside – if you think there is an abuse of evidence (cards are cut abusively, dates are wrong, etc etc) call it out as soon as you spot it in your speech and I will review it.

Kicking Args –

If you want to get rid of an argument, just say you’re kicking it. If you don’t address it, it is dropped and automatically flows to your opponents, making your life hard. Don’t run a time wasting argument just to kick it (generic T’s just to 'test the aff'). If you kick something in the 2NC, bring it up during your 1NR just as a note.

CX –

While I don’t flow CX, I do listen to what is being said. If you want something from CX to be evaluated when I score, say it in your speech. I only pay attention to CX if there is a miscommunication, abuse, or some sort of error.

In TFA, I don’t care if you do open CX or prompt or anything, just don’t overshadow your partner. If you want to be the sole speaker, do LD (which is basically CX at this point).

Flashing –

If you flash, please include me. My email is at the top of my paradigm.

Disclosing -

I do not disclose, please don’t ask. Tournaments don't like it and I don't like making the people that give me money angry.

Thanks for reading my long winded nonsense… ~~Bring me a Red Bull during an IRL tournament and I'll cashapp you for it :D~~ Currently on a caffeine purge! Thank you to those that have offered in the past lol

Last Updated – September 14th, 2023

E. Cook Jordan High School

Last changed on Sun July 14, 2024 at 8:49 PM CDT

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

PFBC update: if your evidence does not have a tag at all, or it is functionally nothing (ie “concludes”, “explains”, etc), I will not flow it

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less

Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story

LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

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

Scott Davis St Agnes Academy

Mohammad Diwan William P. Clements High School None

Richard Duan Hire

Irene Gabler William P. Clements High School

malini gireesh Hire None

Sragvi Gireesh Hire None

Jorge Gomez William B. Travis High School

Sailaja Gorantla Elkins High School None

Debby Haren Hire

Michael Hernandez Stephen F Austin High School None

Samia Hijazi The Woodlands High School

Asia Bela Hossain Hire

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 11:43 AM EDT

Email: belahossain2002@gmail.com

To start with, I have about 4 years of experience in CX. I'm familiar with most of the stuff. I have also debated LD for a while. I try to keep myself updated with all of the terms and topics for both. However, I would like to be reminded or explained about a few terms or shorthand if I'm confused.

Speed and technical reasoning are more than welcome unless you exclude people. Relative Analysis, Clash, and Warranting shape the debate. I respect debaters who use verbal and nonverbal cues to mark crucial information as such, regardless of speech and skill. Slowing down, changing your tone, and repeating yourself are all effective ways to communicate that something is essential, and you should use it. To avoid me misinterpreting you or believing you're using jargon as a support, you should simplify whenever possible.

I flow most of my rounds electronically to be efficient. Make whatever use you choose of that.

I normally start at 28 speaker points and move up or down from there based on productivity, simplicity, clever strategic judgments, and overall essence. I don't mind if you're funny or serious. Simply do your job well.

Theory:

I appreciate the strategic application of theory, but you must slow down and allow me more time to write, construct comprehensive arguments with a claim, some justifications, and an impact, and participate in comparative analysis.

K-affs:

I'm not excessively specific with regards to how the aff connects with the topic; simply be certain that the relationship is clear. Knowing your portrayal and having consistency of clarification from 1AC to 2AR is significant. You would be all around served to have thoroughly considered a case list supported by your counter-interpretation against a structure so you can ventilate genuine discussions that would work out under your model.

Topicality:

The more specific the explanation, the better. I refrain from competing interpretations, as I think one of the burdens of those involved is to defend their choice of support. Rationality is an argument for the counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. Limits discussion usually determines how I feel about the adequacy of aff. Accuracy standards are underutilized, and access to all sorts of interesting educational impacts that can be applied as a lack of solvency on a case-by-case basis.

Kritiks:

K-frame is theoretical. You ought to deal with it as such. I'm inquisitive about resolving questions of ways this debate, the wider activity, myself, you, your opponents, and any target that might be there are implicated inside your arguments.

Counter Plans:

A response plan for a specific case is better than a universal one. It depends on the multi-actor propensity, counseling conditions and conditions.

Disadvantages:

I tend to think that beginning conditions decide the course of occasions, so uniqueness as a rule decides the course of a connection. Be that as it may, I acknowledge the contention that typically not the case in certain cases, as distant as the proof base exists.

Framework:

Debate is an activity wonderful from other speech oriented activities, and I care about keeping that distinction. Right here are a few inquiries to guide your thinking regardless of your vision of debate: What kinds of discussions are counted and why do they count greater numbers than others we could be having? Why debate in preference to a few other modes of opposition or scholarly/activist work? What is the function of the aff? What's the function of the negative? How does conflict work? What limits exist below your interpretation?

Spiridhon Hoxha Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:32 PM CDT

Email: shoxha2020@gmail.com

Give me music recommendations and I'll give you +.1 speaker points.

Intro / About Me:

Shout out to Westside High and UH - I wouldn't be anywhere without you. <3

Don't be discriminatory. I'm warning you now if you have to ask, "Is this problematic? Don't read it - there are better strategies out there.

Also Important: If you read spreading bad in front of me, I will not hack for you. I can spread and I can flow, but I am disabled and these skills were harder for me to develop than most. Many debaters see this as an opportunity for a persuasive 2ar and 2nr push, don't let this be you. I consider this motivated and ableist.

You're either winning an argument on the flow or you're not. Trivializing my struggles or the struggles of any judge for the ballot is an easy way to get me to despise you.

Debate is a game, but it is an academic game. Tech over truth, but truth constrains tech. You'll have a harder time convincing me global warming is fake than convincing me warming will destroy the planet. If two debaters are equal on a particular flow, truth is the obvious tie breaker.

I will try to intervene as little as possible - I'm old school in that you need to explain things to me like I'm 5 for me to grant you the arguments you want to go for.

I have been in this space for too long. I have zero clue how some old heads have been here for 20+ years. As such, it's becoming much harder to tolerate cringe, posturing, flexing, and generally being an obnoxious debater stereotype. While I will not punish you for it, it will still make me cringe. Be nice to people, there's a difference between being confident and being mean.

I vibe check speaks, I don't know what a 30 looks like, but I can feel it. But that doesn't mean that speaks are arbitrary because my flow checks my vibes. I default to a 28.5 and go higher or lower based on your strategic decisions.

Online debate and its consequences have been a disaster for the debate community. Disclose quickly, don't steal prep. I am growing tired of people that can't manage their files and make a 45-minute round an hour long.

Post UT update: Post rounding is cool and checks against dumb decisions, I frequently make bad decisions and I encourage you ask questions, but do it nicely.

Now for the gross stuff

I love the K. I've read many lit bases.

Know your lit, theorize, and don't neglect the material implications of your literature.

I think generic links are fine, but specific links are always better. Saying that a K link is generic and so I should gut check it is never sufficient - you need to explain why a generic link doesn't apply to your aff.

Don't drop your alt unless you're winning a framework push because dropping the alt means that I have to weigh the aff versus the status quo, and 9 out of 10, you will lose that debate.

I default to weighing the aff against the K or something to that effect. If you wan't me to exclude aff offense, you need to do some heavy work.

Fairness is not a good argument if a K team is winning that your model is problematic, justify policy making and then cry about fairness.

Substantive reasons for why they don't get the perm > Theoretical reasons for why they don't get the perm.

You must explain how the perm works for me and the net benefit. Saying "perm do both" - is okay but super weak and usually will not be enough to overcome disads to the perm.

K Affs

Love kritikal affs, but TVAs usually pick up my ballot here. You need to explain your model of debate / method. You should have a strong relationship to the topic or at least explain why a relationship to the topic is bad or doesn't matter.

Framework:

Define how your method of debate works, the benefits only your method can access, and why you can include their model / arguments, even if they can't argue for their perfect advocacy.

Generally speaking, it's okay if the topic excludes your specific author - you don't get the perfect aff sometimes, it is what it is. Debate is about controversies and every advocacy (mostly) will have side-constraints, disadvantages, or criticism from different schools of thought. You should embrace this.

Don't neglect case - if they're winning that their scholarship is good and key, it'll be much harder for you to win this flow.

Debatability is not the sole metric that I use to decide T debates. Real world application of literature is another side-constraint of an interpretation.

Sure, your interpretation might produce the most clash, but if there's no exportable topic education, what's the point of clash?

I'm very happy to vote on "Nobody in X field or expertise defines the words in the resolution in a specific way." I hate fake debate T interpretations with 0 real world application.

You need to weigh between standards and different implications of interpretations.

Also weigh definitions - but saying, "Our definition is from a reliable source, and yours isn't." is not an argument.

Competing Interps > Reasonability.

Policy

Deploy whatever arguments you need to win the round.

I love a good counterplan gimmick.

Pics are good. But my default can change.

Delay counterplans are not legit. Unless, the net benefit is fire and super specific.

Process counterplans are suspect, but I'm willing to vote on them.

Actor counterplans are fine.

You must justify judge kick - and say you're kicking something.

Use differential degrees or lense of sufficiency framing to explain how I should evaluate solvency deficits vs. the net benefit of the counterplan.

Weigh between different scenarios please.

Compare warrants and explain why yours are better, this is super neglected in policy and LD especially.

Explain how the PIC solves the aff. I will not give this to you just because you label something a pic.

No opinions on condo, dispo, or how many offs are too much. I will police this more in LD. I think 2 to 3 condo positions + squo is enough neg flex, but you're more than welcome to convince me otherwise. I really don't care.

There can be 0 risk of a DA - but it's very rare. You need to do stellar work here for me to say there's no risk to the DA.

Theory: 3

I don't like these debates in LD - they're way overused.

In policy, theory debates are fine.

Defaults:

Reasonabilty > Competing Interps

No RVIs.

Yes, 1AR theory.

DTA > DTD, unless DTA is impossible.

Tricks:

I used to discriminate against these arguments, but there's no reason why these arguments are any less legit than the K, a DA, or T. I'm just not qualified to be your judge - read at your own risk.

Austin Huang Dulles High School

Lingyi Huang Hire

Sherry Huang Dulles High School

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 8:25 AM CDT

DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE A GAME. DO NOT ABUSE TRIGGER WARNINGS AND OPT OUT WHEN YOU ARE NOT TRIGGERED JUST TO AVOID THE ARGUMENT. THAT IS EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL TO ACTUAL VICTIMS.

with that, hi! i'm sherry, and i've been doing pf on the national and texas circuits for 3 years

tech > truth unless it's stupid (ie sexism exists, racism exists, you can't disprove that. i'm ok with spark, recession turns, climate change turns, etc tho). i flow the round

ofc, debate is a safe space, and any discriminatory speech or action will result in an auto L20

general:

i evaluate framing -> weighing -> argument that won weighing -> next best argument if the argument that won weighing has terminal defense on it. if weighing is nonexistent/a wash, i vote on strength of link

i will not evaluate responses that are extended through ink

everything needs to be extended through summary and final for it to be a factor in my decision

i can flow up to 250 wpm. if you're going faster, send a doc. i'll be a little disgruntled, but i won't hold it against you

i vote off warrants, not card names. my threshold for extensions isn’t that high - just hit every link in the chain

prog:

i've run stock ks (terror talks <3, orientalism, securitization stuff) before, and i'm comfortable evaluating them. i'm not suuuper familiar with non-T ks because i've never debated them before, but i know how they work. if your k is kind of convoluted, just slow down and warrant it out more. i really don't know how to evaluate performance ks - i'm probably not the best judge for them

i've also run theory shells, but i think debaters should reserve this for actual abuse (so no friv)

i've read high theory lit (mostly baudrillard), but i'm not super familiar with it, and i've never run it before - i'm down to try and evaluate them, just be super clear abt what i'd be voting on

i think trix are funny, but i've never debated them before. i'm down to try and evaluate a trix round, but i can't guarantee an rfd or result you'd like

i don't really know what phil or larp entails lol

pet peeves, in order of i-will-probably-hack-against-u to mild annoyance:

1. reading pess when you're not part of that demographic (eg reading afropess as an asian debater)

2. dumping straight unwarranted, unimplicated, unimpacted, one-sentence turns in rebuttal and blowing them up in summary

3. profanity (unless you're reading rage/killjoy), especially if it's used aggressively

4. saying "my time will start in 3...2...1." this is a debate round, not a space shuttle launch - or "my time will start on my first word." when else would it start, ur second word?? just make sure everyone is good and start brah lol

misc:

if u finish the round within 45 minutes of starting, i'll +1 speaks

if u email rl3.rina@gmail.com "i hate disclosure" and show me proof before round, i'll +0.2 speaks

Oliver Ibarra Dulles High School

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 6:33 AM CDT

he/him/his

please add me to the email chain : olibarra323@gmail.com

I know debate can be a lot for novices so please don't be afraid to ask for clarification on anything I say, there are no dumb questions!

i’ve been doing policy debate at dulles high school for three years. i have enough knowledge of other debate events to get by, but i might need clarification on event norms especially if you’re running theory. i’m cool with pretty much any arguments as long as you can explain why they’re worth a ballot. go crazy go stupid !!

policy:i’m very familiar with all areas of the topic. run what you want to run and i will evaluate it. i know the learning curve on policy debate specifically is insane. i want the rounds i judge to be a safe place for novices to learn and take risks, so please do not worry about messing up. i’m honestly just proud that you guys are brave enough to come out here and debate. i think a lot of people get scared off of policy because admittedly rounds are long and the competition is intimidating, but i promise you it will get easier. even if you don’t win my ballot, you have earned my respect. feel free to reach out if you have any extra questions before or after round :)

argument specifics:

DA’s: love them, they’re great on this topic. make sure you have a clear narrative and can identify the uniqueness, link, and impact of your DA. if you don’t run a counterplan with it, i need to know why the impact of the DA is worse than the impacts the plan solves for: why is the world of the aff worse than the status quo?

CP’s: if you run these with a DA, you need to explain how it avoids triggering the DA especially if it’s something broad like spending. if you don’t run a DA with your CP, i need to know why the CP is significantly better than the plan and the permutation

Topicality: go for it! even if you kick it in the block, i think it’s an underutilized argument and a convincing topicality shell can win you the round. that being said, if your shell is a reach or a timesuck, you probably shouldn’t go for it in the 2NR unless the aff completely concedes it. you need to provide examples of plans that meet your definition of the resolution so i understand what you think debates on this topic should look like.

Theory: basically same as topicality. even if you win that they committed a violation, you need to tell me why that violation is worth voting for. keep the frivolous theory in LD please

Kritiks: i love kritiks <3 that being said, i will not vote on a k without a clear narrative or a k that does not explain why it should earn the ballot.

LD: pretty much the same as policy, i have decent jan-feb topic understanding because i went to the strake jesuit tournament. i understand most arguments on it but if you’re using niche acronyms please tell me what they mean so i can follow what you’re saying.

framing: i’m very familiar with util + baudrillard and have some grasp of most mainstream philosophers. if you can’t explain your value criteria to me in a way i can understand, i’m going to assume you don’t understand it either and i probably won’t vote for it.

unserious arguments don’t need serious answers.

PF: i do not know much about the topic, but i know the basics of how PF works. just make sure you’re explaining why winning a specific argument is worth the ballot.

General:i will flow your speeches. speed is fine just be clear. i am pretty expressive so you can probably read my expressions to see if you’re doing something i really don’t like.

tell me your fav pokémon ! not a speak boost but it will make me happy :)

Tristan Ibarra Dulles High School

Rick Jackson Dulles High School

Suhani Jampala Hire

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 4:50 PM CDT

Hi! I’m Suhani (she/her)!

Newman Smith ’23 (4 years of LD) , UT Austin ’27 (double major computer science & psychology w/ a minor in gender studies) and I work for DFW Speech and Debate

Add me to the email chain— sujamps@gmail.com

If it's a policy round add the team-mail damiendebate47@gmail.com

If it’s an LD round add the other team-mail loyoladebate47@gmail.com

flowing: it is good and teams should do it—

stolen from alderete -- if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. please do this before i submit the ballot

don't acc expect to get 1 extra speaker point from me, this functions on a logarthimic scale.

stolen from nethmin -- I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

in general you can look to nethmin's paradigm for more understanding of how I evaluate rounds

Policy—

This is what I did majority of my senior year, and what I am most comfortable judging—but dont let this dissuade you from reading what you want in front of me—as long as its warranted I will evaluate it.

I love when people cut good prep! I love when you can actually explain and warrant arguments!—especially if your scenario is pretty nonsense (like me doing my com sci homework leads to extinction) having really good ev and a really good explanation will help a lot and beat back any skepticism I have for voting for a very silly scenario.

Plan affs are so fun!

I default to util and weighing impacts by probability*magnitude

K—

I can handle most k lit besides anything pomo tbh..

If you are gonna run pomo in front of me explain it to me like i'm 5.

I think aff gets to weigh case but can be convinced otherwise.

I am not voting for the k if a) I have no idea what the k is saying and/or b) your alt doesnt solve and im not sure what it does (examples are helpful!).

Reading afropess or queer pess when you are not black or queer is weird.

T/Theory—

Alot of these debates get really messy—collapse to one standard to make my life easier.

Im pro disclosure not pro nonsense disclosure shells (must disclose round reports, cites, new affs, etc).

(Policy specific) My threshold for voting on theory is somewhat lower than your average policy judge-however this doesn't mean reading your condo blocks automatically wins you the debate.

Phil—

If you’re reading phil in front of me, treat me like im 5 years old because if its not Kant or Rawls I probably have no idea what your framework is saying and I will be confused.

Tricks—

Tricks make my head hurt and it will be an uphill battle for you to try to convince me you should win the round on one especially because I have never seen a trick with an actual warrant.

The more nonsense the trick the lower the threshold for responding to it is.

Don't make me evaluate silliness your speaks will reflect it.

Speaks—

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and clarity.

Ill say slow/clear three times and so if I still end up missing args it is your fault.

If you have a speech impediment, let me know so clarity will not be evaluated for your speaks.

If you’re rude to your opponent or just do anything to make the round unsafe/exclusionary your speaks will be docked and you might just lose the round—this would obv be for more egregious things—ie maybe dont purposefully misgender people or say slurs etc if you want to win a debate in front of me.

My least favorite thing ever is doc bot vs doc bot debates and speaks will reflect it.

I'll give you 30 speaks if you figure out the significance of 47 in the team-mails on your first try.

Misc—

(LD Jan-Feb Topic Specific) I do not want to judge any Zionism/Israel good debates. I will vote you down and give speaks that will make you unhappy. Adapt or lose.

I can handle speed, but don’t go your top speed in front of me, I can probably handle a 8/10 if 10 is the fastest person on the circuit.

PLEASE slow down on analytics.

I will not flow off the doc or back-flow.

Stop calling everything an IVI.

Don't make me intervene as a judge—extend warrants, weigh between arguments, do judge instruction.

I generally don't feel comfortable evaluating things that did not happen in round other than disclosure.

Lack of warrants in debate is killing me, I'm not voting on an argument that is not warranted, doesn't make sense.

I spend a lot of time with a lot of old grumpy policy coaches, and therefore judge similarly to old grumpy policy coach.

Prep time ends when the email is sent--stop stealing prep and wasting everyone's time.

Entertain me!

Andrew John Dulles High School

Clark Johnson Hire

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:32 AM MDT

Coach for the University of Houston, Langham Creek High School, and Memorial High School

A couple of thoughts before I address specific arguments

for Wake/UT - I haven't judged very much this year and don't know what the norms/args are yet

If it’s important say it more than once, I don’t necessarily mean that you should just repeat yourself, but make the argument in more than one place with more than one application.

Highlighting should be able to be read - I think that your evidence should be highlighted in a way that makes at least some grammatical sense - this is kind of subjective but if its a true abomination of words slapped together I won't read around your highlighting to understand what you're trying to say.

please time yourselves

I would like to be on the email chain, clarkjohnson821@gmail.com

T debates (and theory debates) are already very blippy, if you want me to evaluate it, slow down. I like it when teams use T strategically in other areas of the debate.

DA's: good spin > sepcific ev > generic ev. I like intuitive turns case arguments and I love when you can implicate the aff’s internal links and solvency using other parts of the disad. I think that

CP's: These are fine, if you want to know my thoughts on judge kick see Rob Glass's paradigm.

K’s: As long as you approach the debate assuming I won’t understand your version of baudrillard we’ll probably be fine. 2nr (and 2nc to some extent) explanation of what the alt world would look like, how the alt solves the links to the aff, and how the alt solves the impacts are important to me, I find myself to be much more persuaded by neg teams that can do this well.

K affs v fw: I think your aff should in some way be related to the topic, that's not to say that you have to be, just that it will make it easier for you to win those debates.

K affs v k's: this is by far the debate that I have the least experience with, something that's really important to me in these debates is clarity of how the alt/aff functions and how it interacts with the links to your opponent's argument, I tend to find myself being persuaded by detailed alt analysis.

if you’ve noticed a common theme here, it’s that I think the alt debate is important

Theory: Default neg and reject the argument, you should give me reasons to do otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it if you don't slow down and explain your argument, most debaters spread blippy blocks that make it difficult to flow and evaluate, if the 2nr or 2ar want to go for theory in some form or fashion you're going to have to do a modicum of work, saying severance perms bad for 10 seconds at the top of your 2nr is not enough to get me to vote on it as long as the 2ar makes any sort of response.

Counterplans bad is probably not a reason to vote aff

I don’t judge this event as often so I may lack a more nuanced understanding of how things function in LD compared to policy, but with that being said I’m open to however you want to do it, be it traditional or progressive. Your phil and theory debates are a little alien to me coming from how we approach similar arguments in policy, so if that’s what you think you’ll be going for in your 2ar or nr be super clear. Most of my thoughts about args in cx will color my analysis of the arguments you make in LD.

I dont consider the time it takes for your opponents to provide you their evidence as prep time, and I don't think you need to take cx time for it either. If you can’t tell, I am primarily a policy judge and as such I probably have a higher standard for evidence quality and access than your average judge.

other than that I don't have strong opinions when it comes to what arguments you want to read as long as you justify them (read: impacts matter!)

im not familiar with pf norms when it comes to whether you should or shouldn’t answer opponents args in summary or 2nd constructive. And sometimes I feel like I’m inconsistent in trying to figure out and apply what they are in my rounds judging it. As such I will treat it as I would a cx round unless you tell me otherwise - new args can be made in first two speeches, summary should not be new args (but can if they are answering a new argument, ie 1st speaking team makes an argument that directly answers a new arg made by 2nd speakers in the last constructive speech) in terms of extensions through to ff I don't think that saying something in grand is enough for me to weigh it at the end of the debate if you dont extend it through your last speech.

I will probably call for evidence. If you paraphrase, expect me to not treat your evidence with the same level of veracity as someone citing specific parts of their cards.

Leena Joshi Hire

Kevin Karaki Sharp LV Hightower High School

David Kennedy Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

pallavi kulkarni Hire None

Ryan Landreneau Kempner High School

Morgan Lee Heights High School

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 1:37 PM CDT

they/them

rylee.stgl@gmail.com for evidence sharing purposes.

I participated in policy debate at both the high school and collegiate level.

Spreading is okay. Open cross-examination and flex prep are okay as long as it is consensual between the competitors. All arguments are acceptable, K and Theory included. I default to policy-making. Defending the status quo is a valid negative position.

Disadvantages: Specific/non generic links are the most important thing.

Counterplans: Would honestly rather you read five good disadvantages than four good disadvantages and a medium counterplan that is going to have seven perms read on it. Counterplans are fine, obviously, but should be specific. Default position is that PICs are bad so just know you'll have to do more work to convince me.

Theory: There should be a very clear warrant for it. If there isn't a clear warrant for the argument, RVIs are hip and cool. I value clash, fairness, and education in that order so ideally I would rather you be having a conversation about the efficacy of the AFF's plan but there is an expectation to maintain competitive integrity.

Topicality: Most topicality arguments come off as time skews and I tend to value reasonability pretty highly so unless the AFF is clearly nontopical (effectually topical or extra topical included) there is a low chance I will vote on this. If the topicality argument is unfounded, RVIs are hip and cool.

Kritiks: Critique the AFF, not just the resolution. Prefer Ks with actionable alternatives.

Framework (CX): As mentioned above, I default to policy-making framework so I want to see the AFF's plan weighed against either the status quo, counterplan(s), or alternative(s). That said, probability > magnitude, provided the impacts are suitably large. Timeframe is tricky depending on impact, mass extinction tomorrow isn't necessarily as impactful as continued systemic violence, for instance, but there are reasonable arguments on both sides and I think that is a debate worth having.

Framework (LD): Most framework debates, in my experience, just dissolve to the frameworks being the same or similar enough that the winning side can solve using either. Your frameworks should have specific value criteria to help weigh the round.

If you have any questions not covered by the above or would like elaboration, please ask.

Boping Li Dulles High School

Charles Li Dulles High School

Justin Li Dulles High School

Rina Li Dulles High School

Rong Li Dulles High School

Leann Liu The Awty International School

Armando Lopez Morton Ranch High School

Michelle Luo The Awty International School

April Ma Hire

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 4:00 AM CDT

yay! debate

I'm April, a former PF debater, and during my short lived career I became a TFA State and Nats Qualifier.

put me on email chains aprildebatesyay@gmail.com

Debate to win and have fun doing it. So for starters, being rude is an automatic dock. Aggressiveness is only acceptable to a certain extent, and I am looking at the people who tend to be rude in cross. Attitude does not equal winning.

I will say my facial expressions will probably show what I’m thinking - use that to your advantage. If I look like I don’t want to be there, you are most likely doing something I have said not to do in this paradigm, which will affect you negatively.

(will say a lot of my paradigm is from Bryce Piotrowski's - very good paradigm)

Speaking:

With regards to speeches, I do want to be able to understand what you are saying. I'm not going to make your argument for you. I'm not going to vote on what you MIGHT be saying, but what you ARE saying. How you speak matters. (No doc bot)

I shouldn’t have to strain to hear you. Enunciation helps a lot.

I will flow the debate carefully. My issues with rate of delivery typically stem from the fact that as rate increases, clarity often decreases, and I end up missing things. I will make every attempt to keep up with you and flow what I can understand from your speech. I will not read the speech document to fill in warrants or cards that I have missed. If you don't see me writing for an extended period of time, it's because I can't understand you for some reason, and you should slow down or speak more clearly.

Speaks are pretty easy. Like I said, as long as you aren't rude, aren't mumbling, etc. you will be fine.

Structure:

Not going to vote on contentions without impacts, no matter how good they are. Very sad situation to be in so please just have an impact. Link chains must be clear, but if your opponent does not dispute them it won't be a voting issue. Just annoying for me :)

This also means that all advocacies, plan texts, etc., should advocate for something to happen and should defend the material consequences of that thing happening. Teams should debate the solvency of the advocacy more.

Very big on bringing up arguments too late in the round - if this happens I WILL NOT EVALUATE IT. I do dislike one line extensions as well, so try to avoid those.

I also will not vote off things that happen during cross UNLESS you bring it up in your speech. So do that if something substantial happens

I will time the debate with my phone, but I will not say anything if you go over time. You should be timing yourself. I will flow everything that you say up until the timer reaches the speech time. You are free to keep talking after the timer goes off, but it will not go on my flow. If you keep talking for a ridiculously long time after the timer goes off, I will probably cut you off and act annoyed. I will also time cross-x and prep time. Please clearly tell me when you are starting and stopping prep time. Timer shenanigans will result in decreased speaker points.

Evidence:

You should have evidence if it is called for. If you don't, that sucks, and it will show. Evidence ethics is very important and misleading evidence will be punished. Being unable to produce the original copy or a cut card of evidence upon request, lying to opponents about evidence or source quality, or intentionally misleading opponents as to which evidence was read at a point in the debate truly lead to better debates

I would strongly prefer that evidence is read in the format of a cut card when first presented, and that you send a document containing all of the cards that you have read, in order, either immediately before or immediately after the end of your speech. I do not need anything that is not carded evidence other than plan texts or theory/topicality interpretations. If you refuse to share carded evidence with your opponents for any reason, including being "unable to find the card," I will vote against you -- that is a violation of the NSDA's rules regarding evidence exchange, and an exceptionally shady practice that I wish to punish with my ballot.

Theory/K/etc:

Most theory debates end up being tired and recycled, with debaters deploying these strategies with little regard for their applicability to the debate at hand. I'll vote on it if you prove to me why I should, but I would be more enthused if you would pick a more interesting strategy. Your speaker points will probably suffer. That said, if you're reading theory in a way that contextualizes a specific violation to this particular round or position your opponents are reading, I will be far more interested in what you have to say. In short - if you have a different strategy, I'd probably prefer to hear that.

Topicality is different than theory, because it involves the affirmative's specific advocacy. I'm more than fine to listen to these debates.

Disclosure:

Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing the round's result (UIL, NSDA Nationals, etc.), I will disclose my decision and what set of arguments led me to that decision at the conclusion of the round, in as much detail as I possibly can fit into the time I have to render and deliver a decision. You are always welcome to ask additional questions at any time, as long as you're being reasonable and respectful.

(✿◠‿◠)

with all that being said, hit the dougie for extra speaks. preferably well, and at a good time in ur speech. like maybe when u drop a banger.

Jaquarius McDonald Hastings HS None

Larrisha McDonnough Hastings HS

Last changed on Mon March 11, 2024 at 2:14 PM CDT

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Medha Menon Dulles High School

Vishnu Nataraja Hire

Alice Tuong Linh Nguyen Hire

Cathy Nguyen Dulles High School None

Thuan Nguyen Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:11 PM EDT

Debate

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round.

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast. While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument. Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible.

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this.

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

Nikesh Patel Dulles High School None

Daniela Paul Hire

Last changed on Mon March 25, 2024 at 8:30 AM CDT

Daniela Paul (She/Her/Hers)|University of Houston '27|danielasarapaul@gmail.com

include me in the email chain :), If i dont address something that youre specifically looking for in my paradigm ask me in round! i tried to include everything i could think of! also email me post round if i didn't cover something in rfd!

Okay, so at the top, regardless of the event you participate in, I expect respect. Idon't think I should have to stress this because it should be a matter of common respect, but please avoid being ableist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or sexist. I take a strong stance against any form of disrespect towards others' identities, both in and out of the round. Respect also means respect for yourself (be kind to yourself—debate and speech are designed to empower you as an individual and to showcase your talents and uniqueness), respect for the tournament and the people who are hosting/working on, and, most importantly, respect for your fellow competitors (don't be mean to the person you're competing against; it doesn't sit well with anyone).

Who is She?

Not that this matters much to the debate, but Hello! I’m Daniela! My pronouns are she/her/hers. I am a former debater for Clear Brook High School in Friendswood, Texas. I debated throughout all four years of high school and participated in various events. Some of my achievements include:

2023 Nationals outrounds (Worlds)
2023 UIL District 24 6-A CX champion and state qualifier
2022 UIL region qualifier (persuasive extemporaneous speaking)
TFA state qualifier (Worlds)

I am currently studying at UH , majoring in political science, and I love for debate and speech. It's truly amazing to witness so many talented individuals dedicated to this! I respect your time and effort, and I will judge you fairly!

DEBATE

LD:

Signposting, Spreading, and All That Jazz: Signpost. Let me know where you are, what you're doing, and what you're extending. I aim to judge this debate as fairly and cleanly as possible, and signposting greatly facilitates that.As for spreading, I don't have a strong preference on level of speed. include me in speech drop or the email chain, whichever works best for you. email on the top of paradigm.

now the rest of the stuff:

Clear Value and Value Criterion: I expect both sides to establish a clear Value and Value Criterion and bring them down the bench.
Warrants: Dont do something stupid, if opponent stakes ev ethics, i will stop round, look through it, if the claim is proven true w30 for challenger
I love judge instruction
cx will be flowed, what u say in cx is true for the rest of round, Cx is just another speech to me
i try to stay out of round as much as possible, I will keep to my flow as much as possible, basically saying im gonna avoid judge intervention(as much as one possible can in a round) and dogmatism.

pref sheet: 1 being most comfortable and 5 being least comfortable

1- K ( not a cp, so explain and illustrate the alt. line by line >overview)

1- Plans/counterplans/disads (lmk if u need me to judge kick) (but also like lowk I also kinda ev this in a worlds way so i dont mind no cards for this stuff)

1- trad (Fairly simple, dont think i need to explain, but just cz ur trad does not mean you should not engage with opponent because of different db8 style)

2- Phil (but like in a political sci major that reads it for class sense not so much a debate sense? so extend this stuff throughly )

3- Theory (lowk this i can understand, I just dont like this, strike me if this ur main strategy)

5- trick (pls dont run this, idk how to even comprehend this stuff, strike me if ur planning on reading tricks)

tech>truth

PF:

Tech>Truth

defense is not sticky

ev analysis>

see pref sheet above!

Worlds:My bread and butter at a tournament :)

I largely agree with what is said in Eb's , Jon-carlo's, and Andy Stubbs's paradigms, so take a look at that as well if you want to!

General Guidelines and some other stuff: I am a very expressive person. PLEASE do not regard my expressions as an indicator of how I am eveluating your arguments. Its not indicative of my thought process, its literally just my expressions. That being said, Worlds is a relatively new form of debate compared to others, so organization and structure in your speeches are essential for me as a judge to follow and flow the debate clearly. I appreciate knowing where you are in your speech, which arguments you're extending, and which arguments you're refuting or disproving. Remember, Worlds is meant to be a conversational debate, so please avoid spreading. When it comes to Points of Information (POIs), they should be concise,not longer than 15 seconds, and presented respectfully without badgering or requesting follow-ups.

Structure and Fair Play: I believe in maintaining a fair playing ground for both sides. Abusive definitions or interpretations won't incentivize me to vote for a side, assuming we operate under reasonable terms. It's important to identify the stakeholders, the groups affected by the motion, and explain how your stance benefits or affects them. This clarity makes it easier for me to assess and vote on burdens. burdens should be presented, and if the opposing team presents a burden, you should be able to defend your burden as the better criteria for my vote or win on both burdens. I tend to to give more on my ballot to those who address the motions intended debate and do not become conditional with stance (i.e. Embracing the motion in full opp or in full prop). Furthermore I think this debate focus on the verb in the motion itself (i.e. prefers, regrets, believes, would, etc, etc) and so your debate and arguements intentions are heavily dependent on this factor. otherwise put(or like an example if you will), if its a would motion I expect to see policy and etc etc.

Model/Countermodels or Factuals/Counterfactuals: I appreciate well-done model/countermodel or factual/counterfactual arguments when they are presented correctly. If you introduce one, be prepared to extend, explain, and defend it. I need to understand how it benefits the real world, how it mechanizes into the real world, and how it relates to the motion. Characterization is essential - explain why an actor is the way they are, what they will do, and why it's crucial. Simply establishing it is not enough for me.

Arguments: I value principled arguments that are well-explained and topical to the motion. These are great arguments to extend and can win you the debate. BUT they need good analysis, simply establishing its a principle is not assured path to ballot if it ends up becoming principle v practical, They need to exist morally INDEPENDENT of the motions practical, or in other words this moral argument is existing even if the worst practical happens on the opponent case! if its not like that, then its likely you dont have a principle argument. Practical arguments need to be supported by evidence or emperics, or they should be logically sound and explained thoroughly that leaves no room for doubt regarding the implications of the practical argument. No matter what argument you present, it should be extended and explained well, leaving no room for otherwise interpretation. On the rebuttal, it's a solid strategy to acknowledge empirical truths and focus on showing why the benefits or harms on your side outweigh or is preferable to the world where the empirical truth still exists (basically just bite the bullet, but this does NOT mean all bullets should be bitten). Dont waste time to avoid the empirics basically. then I love to see mech weighing or warrant weighing, i feel like under both sides of the motion impacts can be grouped together, so I love it when teams are able to prove why their mech is comparatively better than the opponents. that being said, give me the comparative under literally every argument you make, worlds is a comparitive debate at heart.

Weighing: When it comes to weighing, consider the following

Clash: Did you properly address the opponent's arguments with line-by-line rebuttal and meta-analysis ? Explain, weigh, and clarify the role of the arguments. Make sure youre not avoiding the big picture arguements either, some clash is better than NONE at all.
World-by-world comparison: Ensure both worlds are clearly established. Describe what the opponent's world looks like and how it compares to your world. Explain why your world is superior. I should feel confident in voting for your world because I understand it and am comfortable with it. remember this is a comparative debate at its very core, simply taking a defesnsive stance and proving your opponents world is bad, without showing me the comparative and proving to me that your world is better than opponents is not going to win my ballot. This means engaging on this idea with EVERY arguement or point of clash you have.

Speech:

Info and OO: I appreciate creativity and prefer specific topics. Speeches should be well-memorized. I enjoy engaging speeches that cover intresting topics, and good visuals and movement during the speech.

POI, Prose, Poetry, DI, and DUO: I believe that each piece should have its unique personality, and I judge based on how well that personality is depicted. It's important to address the heart of each piece and the emotions it conveys.

Extemp: I expect organization, sources, and, most importantly, that the topic is thoroughly addressed.

Chloe Cortez Pineda Hire

Last changed on Sun September 24, 2023 at 4:17 PM CDT

tl;dr: debated pf in high school; typical flow judge ^^
i like roadmaps and clear signpostings. for theories or k's to be evaluated, they must be explained very well. if you spread, send a speech doc and make sure to enunciate. clean warranting is very important. defense is sticky.

add me to the chain: chloepineda@gmail.com

general:
- i value quality arguments over quantity of arguments. fewer, well-developed arguments will get you farther. therefore, I don't need gasp-level speed. warrant analysis is essential to a good debate and i need to be able to flow it. do not waste cx time asking which cards the speaker skipped. do not waste your speech time answering arguments they didn't read. do not miss the analytical arguments that your opponents included speech but not their doc (either because it was dope and off-the-dome or because they don't have to)

theory:
- i'm unlikely to go neg on t absent a clear violation and an abuse scenario. if your abuse scenario is underdeveloped, then a good clash elsewhere is key to an offensive t debate from the negative. t debates should be framed on both sides, and standards need to be impacted and weighed comparatively
- the 2NR should only go for one position/world. multiple, contradicting positions in the 2NR make the judge's decision difficult.

k’s:
- if you run a k, demonstrate that you've read the literature, know your authors and truly understand what you're advocating-- don't wait until the rebuttals to explain the critical theory behind your lx and alts
- tagline extensions of 1NC evidence will never win you the k debate. If the neg is not doing in-depth work on the link, the perm will likely solve it. framework, where necessary, should consist of the same aspects as a good theory or t debate.

cross/speaks:
- tag-team cx is generally unnecessary. if your partner needs help answering a question, a short interjection is fine. otherwise, tag-teaming should be avoided
- running a k on novice as varsity debaters is unnecessary and will only hurt your speaks. i consider myself a "tabula-rasa," but i will default to policy-maker if you don't provide me with a decisive way to evaluate the round
- make a reference to a new jeans song and i’ll give u full speaks :3

other:
show care and always aid in your opponents' understanding of the arguments and the world of debate as a whole; be authentic and vulnerable but know your arguments inside and out; do not take this precious activity or space for granted and learn something from every round ^^

Spencer Powers The Kinkaid School

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 1:30 PM CDT

Hi y'all! I did four years of policy debate in highschool, 2 as the 2n, 2 as the 2a. I'm not debating in college now, so the extent of my connection to the activity is periodic judging and chatting with current debaters.

For the purposes of email chain: spencer.powers726@gmail.com

Please ask questions before round if you have them. I’m probably forgetting something.

For Dulles 2023:

Haven't judged since nationals of 2023, so I may be a bit slow on the uptake. I should be able to warm back up pretty quick though. Key issue will be a lack of topic knowledge. I don't know the full resolution off the top of my head (although I am vaguely aware of it!), and I'm not familiar with common topic arguments.

Policy:

Sparknotes/before round:

-Less is more—I’ll evaluate a lot of offcase arguments but I will be sad if i have to use a lot of sheets of paper that get tossed in the block

-I flow on paper--I can understand you speaking fast, but I can only write down so many arguments so quickly

-You can run generic arguments, but I'm generally not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counterplans.

-K framework that takes away the plan is fine. Probably more receptive to it than most.

-I'll default to offense/defense framing, but you can persuade me out of that. Zero risk is hard but possible.

-Conditionality’s fine. 2 is probably a good limit, but I'm open to hearing both sides debate it out.

-Tech>truth, but if I can't explain the argument and its warrants it's not going into my consideration

-I don't take prep for flashing.

-I'll shout clear twice. For online debating, this is especially relevant. You are not going to be as clear as you are in an in person debate, so slow down.

-I tend to take a long time to make my decisions. Don't read too much into it, I just like to cover all my bases.

Full thing:

My goal as a judge is to let the debaters do what they do, and judge accordingly based on who most persuaded me that they are correct. "Persuasion" here may be a bit of a misnomer because debaters oftentimes think that their only goal is to sound pretty when the judge wants to be persuaded. Let me be clear: you should sound pretty, but I will be flowing and taking into account technical concessions as well. But the effect that technical concessions have on my decision will be dependent on how well you persuade me to vote in a direction. I am human, I have biases, and you should use your ability as a debater to make rhetorically strong arguments that make me vote for you.

Kritiks:

As a I 2n, I went for mainly very basic kritiks (as I was a younger debater at the time) such as capitalism and security. As I got older, my partner and I experimented with psychoanalysis, gender, and nietzsche. I have a strong familiarity with all of those kritiks, but my ability to understand them in the context of debate has declined over time without the frequency that competing with them brought. I have a passing familiarity with other kritiks, and will depend highly upon strong negative explanation on both the framework and alternative level to give you a win.

I have found as I have judged that I have oftentimes voted for kritiks that I don't think were very strong. I think this is a symptom of affirmative teams that struggle to explain why state policymaking is valuable and why their affirmative is good. I also think that negative teams have moved towards a "meta" of going for framework really hard, which has turned out to be quite effective for me. Framework really is the central question of the round, and I generally find myself not doing what most judges seem to be doing and kind of evaluating it on their own as "aff gets a plan and neg gets discursive DAs." I really will just let you completely void the plan or completely say Ks aren't allowed. But you need to work for it.

Do more impact work. Teams don't do enough impact work on the K. Aff teams should impact turn more. Neg teams should explain more impact work in general.

K affs:

Sure. I've read a few in my time. I strongly prefer them to be related to the topic, and generally look down upon affs that are critiques of debate in general. I think that having a predictable topic is good, and K affs that are closer to a traditional model of topicality will get more leeway with me.

I don't think it makes sense just to impact turn framework. How can you win if you don't have a counter interpretation? Defend a counter interpretation of the topic and explain its standards in relation to the neg's interp if you want my ballot.

Performance:

Sure. It should exist for a reason, otherwise you're just handing links to your opponent.

Counterplans:

I prefer advantage counter plans and PICs that remove something from the plan. Not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counter plans, such as consult, reg neg, delay, or any other procedural counter plan. Agent counter plans only make sense to me when the aff has a clearly defined agent other than "the USfg". I haven’t made up my mind on 50 states. Not a fan of word pics that don't change the function of the counter plan (No "The" PICs please).

If you feel up to it, you can still run all those counter plans I don't view favorably. Just know that I'll probably align closer to aff theory arguments against them if the affirmative decides to go for theory against you.

I don’t default to judge kick, but I will if you tell me.

Disadvantages:

Judging DA and Case 2NRs is difficult when people don’t do impact calculus. Please do impact calculus.

I’m alright with generic politics DAs. I understand that you might not have a specific strategy for every affirmative. But please, try to get specific with the link if you can.

Theory:

Cheap shots make me sad. If you want to go for one, shame me into voting for you because I will likely feel like I shouldn’t. I’ll default to reject the argument.

Topicality:

I went for topicality a lot, both in my 2NRs and my 1NRs. Predictability/precision standards are probably the most persuasive to me, followed by generic limits and generic ground. Remember to connect them to education (I mostly view fairness as an internal link to education) or I won’t know why to vote for it.

I default to competing interps, but I'm not very strong on that. Affs can win reasonability if they work to.

For the neg: I'm somewhat receptive to dubious T interps. Feel free to explain why your interpretation of the topic is so obviously true, even if the aff is also probably pretty easy to predict generally. It's about the interpretations, not the aff specifically.

Neg Framework:

I am more amenable to skills based/“State policymaking is really great actually” arguments than I am fairness based arguments.

I also think limits as necessary for effective topic education is a good argument. I like smaller topics.

Speakerpoints:

I've found that I'm very kind with speaker points. I'll try to turn it down a notch but I'll probably still be above average. Be kind, rhetorically effective, make good arguments, and make strategic decisions if you want to get high points.

LD Section:

Everything above is true. If you’re doing LD in front of me, you’ll have an easier time persuading me if you treat it like mini-policy. I have preliminary knowledge of Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, and some other weird philosophers but I don’t know anything about how they’re used in LD. LARPing is a good idea. I’m much more likely than any given LD judge to wave away theory arguments as a reason to reject the arg. RVIs are not my thing.

PF Section:

PF evidence standards are not great. Paraphrasing is technically allowed in my book but you need to be very careful about it. Don't say the evidence says something it doesn't, or your speaker points will be bad. You should have quick and easy mechanisms by which your opponent can read the evidence you bring up in your speech. Arguments supported by evidence your opponent can't read will be understood as made without evidence. If you provide the full evidence to your opponents and me before your speech with highlighting of what you've read, your speaker points will be dramatically improved.

I will evaluate the debate by weighing impacts at the end of the round, comparing each team's solvency for their impacts as well as which ones are more important.How I determine which ones are more important is up to you.

Shauna Punch The Woodlands High School None

Ritika Raj Dulles High School None

Akshitha Ramaraju Dulles High School

Tameka Ramsey Dulles High School None

Sheila Riestra KIPP East End High School

Rajia Saeed Stephen F Austin High School None

Ayo Sanneh Dulles High School None

Edison Sanon Hastings HS

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:24 PM CDT

Individual events: in extemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.

In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.

In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.

LD: I will honestly say the I don't judge LD in the traditional sense and I draw my decisions based on my IE and PF experiences. Like PF your cross and rebuttal speeches usually wins the day in my eyes so if you can extract good counter information in cross and use it in rebuttal, then you'll likely get the win.

PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.

I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.

Being the presiding officer it means that you have to dedicate your life and your time at the chamber to the speakers and making sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.

I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

Antaraa Sarkar Hire

Last changed on Fri June 19, 2020 at 12:47 PM EDT

I have debating experience in novice and varsity circuits. I am relatively tech over truth. I don't mind spreading, but I would really appreciate a speech document (probably would drop speaks if I am not given one). If you're going to spread for rebuttal, I want a speech doc (or just don't spread cause I will probably give higher speaks if you don't, however, I wouldn't decrease speaks if you do). People can make mistakes on flows, so make sure to keep emphasizing what was extended and dropped in your and your opposition's speeches. Make your LINK CHAINS CLEAR!!! And make sure to warrant your arguments. Try to speak clearly especially if we are doing this virtually. I will rudely and aggressively interrupt you by saying/screaming CLEAR if I don't understand what you are saying!!!! I may or may not keep time, but I will be lenient if you go a little over time unless the opposition calls you out. If you go over 15 seconds overtime, I will start decreasing speaks.

Constructive- Try to speak at a steady pace, try not to use filler words! I don't like extremely slow speeches, so I prefer 230 or more words per minute.

Crossfires- I like assertive crossfires!!! I DO NOT FLOW CROSSFIRES!!! If something significant was mentioned during one, please bring it up in the next speech (also mention that it was stated in cross). I don't really care about grand cross. If both you and your opposition choose not to do it before the round, I will drop grand cross and give you an additional minute or two of prep (I may also boost speaks ;) for saving me some time).

Rebuttals- I would appreciate it if you go in the order of the contentions. Please provide a roadmap, you don't have to say off-the-clock roadmap though. DO NOT WEIRDLY ALTERNATE BETWEEN YOUR AND YOUR OPPOSITION'S CASE (I WILL CUT SPEAKS!!!), and if you signpost throughout the speech, I will BOOST SPEAKS! I want to see front lining from both sides!!! And I don't expect any, but I hope to see some weighing in rebuttal:) I will give both teams some sticky defense, but please try to respond to and extend everything.

1AR specifics- I am fine with DAs. I want to see front lining. ALSO, GIVE ME A ROADMAP IF YOU VALUE YOUR SPEAKS!!! :P

2AR specifics- I NEED A ROADMAP. The second speaking team is responsible for OFFENSE AND DEFENSE and I want an organized speech (follow your roadmap!!!!).

Summary- I WILL LOVE YOU IF YOU COLLAPSE!!!!! (Please specify which contention you're collapsing on). Also, collapsing is not the same thing as conceding (PLEASE DON'T CONFUSE THOSE!!! I WILL DROP SPEAKS!!!). WEIGH, RESPOND, AND EXTEND!!!! I will allow the first speaking team to bring in new evidence during summary if they are responding to opposition's responses to rebuttal. I DO NOT LIKE WHEN THE SECOND SPEAKING TEAM BRINGS UP NEW EVIDENCE DURING SUMMARY!!! DO NOT DO THAT, I WILL DOCK SPEAKS!!! Your opposition doesn't have any more speeches left to respond to your new evidence, so don't do it!!! I will consider this abusive!!! If you do it, and your opposition calls you out, I will boost their speaks!!! Collaboration between partners is crucial when transitioning from rebuttal to summary, so a smooth extension of your partner's rebuttal responses during summary will boost speaks.

Final Focus- WEIGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! TELL ME WHY YOU WIN THIS ROUND!!!! DO NOT BRING UP NEW EVIDENCE OR EVIDENCE YOU DIDN'T EXTEND!!!! I will not vote on new material or responses and only things extended through summary!!! WEIGHING is something I really look forward too!

Weighing- Don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant!!!! (I like impact weighing). Logical weighing (XYZ will or won't happen/this is better longterm) is okay if well explained, but I prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing when evaluating speaks. Logical weighing over statistical weighing won't really affect your ballot as long as logical weighing is actually logical!!! If both teams end up at the same impact, I have to look to the stronger/best-defended link chain. But in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

Prep- I may or may not keep track of prep. If your opposition catches you going over prep, I will deduct your speaks and boost theirs. Again, you can earn an additional minute or two of prep if you guys get rid of grand cross. If I am keeping track of prep and you go over time by more than 5 seconds, I will deduct speaks. If you stop prep and then take an additional 10 seconds setting up time....just don't do that.

Cards and asking evidence- Don't take too long please and have everything formatted. Have the source links ready. I probably wouldn't call for evidence during a round unless your opposition prompts me too or if it's highly contested during the round. KNOW YOUR CASE AND WHERE YOUR EVIDENCE IS!!!

Progressive- I am not familiar with many progressive arguments and most likely won't know how to assess it. I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU DON'T RUN THEM (Especially if you are novices!!!!!!!). I am okay with framework, disads, and counter plans. If you run anything else like tricks or theory, I am not comfortable with assessing them so you would be bringing my bad assessment upon yourself. I don't have enough experience with progressive arguments and may drop them or your speaks depending on how well I understand it. To stay safe, just don't run it. However, if you do, whatever (Just don't blame me for how it ends or feel bad if you get judge screwed).

Other- I will start of with 30 speaks for both sides and will assess those as the round progresses. Following my paradigm will ensure high speaks. Pre flow before rounds and don't forget to give content warnings as needed. I don't mind paraphrased cases but use evidence fairly. If you misuse evidence and get caught, YOUR SPEAKS WILL FACE A DETRIMENTAL DROP AND I WILL DROP YOUR ARGUMENT. Give me an order before speeches. I will disclose my decision after round (Usually) and give an RFD. If you have questions or choose to postround, that's okay. If you're post rounding, be assertive and confident in your reason because if it's a stupid reason, I will dock speaks. Finally, if the round gets extremely messy and I don't buy anyone's arguments, I will default to the first speaking team. Stay respectful and polite. There is a fine line between assertiveness and aggression. Also, if you really really want me to give you high speaks, quote Taylor Swift/Selena Gomez/Ariana Grande or DAY6 songs and if I catch it, I'll give you a 30 as long as you weren't rude/don't need unnecessary amounts of improvement:)

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!!!!!

Bryce Sheffield Hire

Last changed on Thu July 11, 2024 at 8:07 AM CDT

Background ---

UH '26

Conflicted against Seven Lakes HS, Barbers Hill HS, and anyone in Break Debate.

Policy debater at the University of Houston 1x NDT qualifier

Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate

Put me on the email chain --- debatesheff@gmail.com

If I am judging PF also put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Overall perspective ---

Please don't call me judge---Bryce is fine

I will vote on anything. I have done extensive policy and K debate so it is naturally my preferred styles. I am open to other styles of debate and will vote on anything just might be less comfortable.

I hate deadtime in debates. It makes me increasingly frustrated when there isn't a timer running and it seems like no one is doing anything. To minimize this please have the email chain with the speech doc sent AT START TIME.

thoughts---essentially the same for policy and LD.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate

--- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

--- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

--- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

--- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

--- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

--- I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round.

--- New affs bad is a bad argument.

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

Mehal Shelare Dulles High School

Meenakshi Sivanandam Dulles High School None

Sonya Smith Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:49 AM CDT

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," for ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows me to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, and time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level.

With Congress, I look for proper parliamentary procedures and clarity of delivery through rigor, focused on democracy and clarity of ideas, seriousness in demeanor, and effective empowerment in speaking extemporaneously about the topic. Authenticity with clear speaking points such as sentence structure, eye contact, transitions, and word choice. The standard of decorum must be met.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

Holly Smook Dulles High School None

Radha Sriram Dulles High School

Jeffrey Stirl William P. Clements High School

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Cathy Sui Dulles High School

Craig Tahaney St Agnes Academy

Candace Thorpe William B. Travis High School

Neville Tom Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 11:27 AM EDT

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
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, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Han Tran Dulles High School

Mohammad Ullah Stephen F Austin High School

Kafi Ummatul Hire

Sai Vudata Dulles High School None

Trisha Vudata Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 10:41 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Trisha (she/her)! I'm a sophomore that's been in debate (LD) for 2 years. I'm helping judge our team tournament, so I don't think this needs to be super specific since I'll only be judging novice rounds. Let me know if there's any way that your opponent and I can accommodate you in round.

If you're going to spread, add me to the email chain: trisha.vudata@gmail.com and dulles.ld.db8@gmail.com (send to both)

General:

Don't be a jerk: don't be homophobic/transphobic/ableist/sexist, etc, respect people's pronouns, accommodate your opponent if they ask you to, don't talk down to your opponent, don't interrupt them in cross (unless they're going on and on, in which case it's okay to interrupt them politely). Debate should be a safe and fun space for EVERYONE - if you do something to prevent it from being so, I'll do anything from downing you with the lowest speaks I can give to stopping the round and asking our coach to disqualify you from the tournament.

I don't think novices will be super fast, but for your reference, I can probably flow someone going at 65-70% of the speed of a really fast person on the circuit.

Debate specific:

I don't think I have to go into specific off case positions since as I said, I'm only judging novice rounds. If you're running something you'd see at a circuit tournament, make sure that you explain the argument well and don't automatically assume I'm 100% fluent in it - the link chain has to be explained. I'm good for anything except tricks and friv theory (if you read these I literally will not evaluate the argument), though I'm best for K's and LARP.

For any argument you make, make sure that it has a claim, warrant, and implication - I won't evaluate blippy arguments. A dropped argument is a true argument, so make sure not to drop anything. If you and your opponent both drop arguments, I'll vote for the person who concedes the less important/significant argument.

I do flow cross, so make sure to use it well.

Speaks:

I'll default to 28.5 - if you get less than 27 it means you made a pretty bad mistake. I'll give you +0.5 speaks if you spin when you make a turn

Alice Waters Heights High School

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 12:28 PM CDT

She/Her

EMAIL CHAIN: alice.debatedocs@gmail.com

QUESTIONS: alicewaters05@gmail.com

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Hi y'all! I did policy for 3 years and ld for 1 year at Heights. Though I always went to ld camp, so most of my conceptual understandings about debate come from ld. I am now an assistant ld coach at The Harker School.

My two main goals when I judge are to firstly ensure that the space is safe for everyone and second evaluate the debate in front of me as neutrally as possible so long as it is not one of the 7 things below. I strongly dislike intervention. Debate should be fun!!!

Will not evaluate:

(1) ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

(2) any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) The round will end.

(3) eval after [x] speech

(4) give me/my opponent [x] speaks

(5) no aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument.

(6) arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

(7) anything I did not flow and understand the implication of in the original speech. This means if you HIDE arguments you run a HIGH risk of them not being evaluated. Even if I do catch them, speaks will be lowered because I will be annoyed by your unwillingness to fully read and defend your arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

How I think about rounds/debate generally:

(1) When I make decisions I first think about the following things in the following order to determine what piece of offense I am voting on: (a) the highest layer based on arguments in the round, (b) the winning framework, and (c) the winning offense under that framework.

(2) If you talk to me like I know nothing/very little you will be happier with my rfd. Not only does this increase the likeliness that I understand each of your arguments, but it also increases the likeliness that the round breaks down/is evaluated in a similiar way to how you thought about it.

(3) I will vote for any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact/implication (so long as it is not something on the list above). Obviously true arguments have a lower threshold to win than obviously false arguments simply because the burden to warrant the argument is much lower if it is already something I believe. To clarify: when I say "obviously true" arguments I do not mean arguments I personally believe, but arguments that a majority of people generally agree on as fact, such as "the sky is blue".

(4) It greatly annoys me when debaters read arguments they misrepresent. For example: (see the explanation of what indexicals actually are)This does not mean that I will vote against arguments that you misrepresent, but know that you are responsible for warranting every part of the argument and cannot just rely on name-dropping the argument, literature base, or author in place of a warrant. Additionally, I reward well researched and properly represented arguments with better speaks.

(5) I will only go back to read evidence once the entire debate is over if (a) I need to because there is a lack of comparison or (b) you tell me to (which you should do if your evidence is very good or your opponents is worse!). If I have to read evidence because of (a) I will likely be upset because I will feel like I had to intervene somewhere to determine what the better arguement was. Additionally, if you are telling me to read evidence, it is in your best interest to tell me what part of the evidence is really good or why the evidence is better to increase the likelihood I view the evidence in the same way you do.

(6) Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as I can understand the specific implication of the rehighlighting from listening to your speech. For example: "[x card] concludes [explanation of different conclusion from original argument], INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is okay, "they are wrong, INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is not.

(7) I WON'T flow off the doc and will only pull it up in constructives to check randomly and make sure you aren't clipping.

(8) The following is a list of "defaults" I have about debate. I think that every default on this list can change as a result of the debate and there should not be an instance when I need to use a "default" because you should be warranting these arguments in the round if they are relevant.
- presumtion negates unless the negative reads a cp, in which case it affirms

- permissibility negates

- comparative words

- I will NOT judge kick unless I am told to. Preferably you would do more than say the words "judge kick" and also justify why it is good.

- competing interps, dtd, no rvi on theory

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Disclosure

The disclosure norms in debate are out of hand. I think disclosure is good. That does not mean you have to disclose if I am judging you but know if you are shifty, lie, or avoid questions I have no problem (a) tanking your speaks (<27) or (b) if you lied, automatically voting against you. Lying is unethical in a similar way to evidence ethics are and I have no problem voting against you if you lie. If you are shifty/avoid questions I will vote on the flow but know your speaks will be ruined and I will be sympathetic to the shell.

- I have judged 5+ debates in the past month where someone makes the argument “screenshots are unverifiable.” If someone says this the answer should not take more than 5 seconds and should just be “they are verifiable in the same way evidence is”. Along these lines – I have added a screenshots section to evidence ethics.

- You should be disclosing over some form of messages. If someone insists on disclosing in person/refuses to over messages, you should still ask over messages and screenshot them not answering. I don’t care if you then went and disclosed in person, send it over messages or you are not getting the I-meet.

- If you don’t want to disclose you should just say you aren’t disclosing and be willing to defend that model of debate. Don’t do things like say the aff is new when it isn’t, say you will disclose and then not, lie about which aff is being read, be unclear what is changing in the aff, etc.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Evidence Ethics

- I think that evidence ethics are a stop round issue, though if you want to just read it as a shell that's fine too and I’ll evaluate it on the flow. If you want it to be a stop round issue say something along the lines of “I want to make an evidence ethics claim, here is what happened” If you are correct W, if you are wrong L with lowest speaks

- Screenshots should not be fabricated. If a screenshot is fabricated, you should treat it as evidence ethics, and it is a stop round issue. I will verify screenshots the same way evidence is verified—by going to the source. This can be one of two things depending on the fabrication a) checking the laptops of the email or b) checking the wiki website

- The following are things I will vote on as a stop-round issue

* clipping (this includes verbally cutting your cards in a different place than your updated doc indicates… I will flow where you say “cut”)

* Citations that are missing or incorrect in one or more of the following parts (given that the information is available): Author name, year, article/book title, URL

* deleting text from the middle of the card/article (this includes replacing it with ellipsis)

* not including full paragraphs/ only having cards with partial paragraphs

* brackets that change the meaning of the text

* including/adding text into the card not from the original article

- If I catch one of these things but no one else does, I won't vote against you, I'll just tank your speaks.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Speaker Points

- I'll start at a 28.5 and work up/down from there. 28.5 is average.

- I find myself bumping speaks for: being particularly nice in round/to your opponent, reading an argument/a strategy I haven't seen in a while/ever, creative 2nr/2ars, giving a winning 2nr/2ar I did not think of during prep, rehighlighting evidence, efficiency.

- You will lose speaks for: being overly rude/aggressive, splitting 2nr/2ars unnecessarily, going for the incorrect 2nr/2ar, misexplaining arguments, an unstrategic cx, reading bad arguments (1 line tricks!), poor time allocation, if I feel like I have to intervene because of lack of evidence comparison/weighing.

- I try to base speaks primarily on strategy & execution.

Cole Landon Woody Hire

Last changed on Thu March 21, 2024 at 5:46 AM CDT

Contact: colewoody1022@gmail.com

P.S. Most of this Paradigm is taken from my teammate, Katherine Yue

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can flow your overall case and round, as long as you aren't spreading. Keep in mind that I may miss something, so never assume I'll make a connection that should've been made by either you or your partner in the round. For example, if your opponent concedes a response or drops an argument, let me know so I can make certain I have that written down, if you don't then it's a 50/50 on something that could potentially win you a round.

Constructive

-I'll evaluate any argument/response well explained the first time it is brought up and extended & weighed later on.

-Please don't spread. You can send a speech doc if you plan on it but I'll probably drop your speaks and not get half of it because flowing off a document kind of ruins the whole speech aspect of debate (but I'll try my best).

Crossfire

-I don't flow cross, but it can affect your speaks. Don't be overly aggressive, if you have to cut someone off do it nicely. Don't try and force your opponents into conceding something here. If an important point is brought up, bring it up in a speech, because I won't do it for you.

-Cross isn't a time to ask for evidence, do that during prep not CX.

-Don't leave empty space within cross, if your opponent doesn't have a question, then you should be prepared to continue poking holes in their case, don't waste what little time you have.

-Don't be afraid to have fun during cross, if you want to make jokes and laugh then go ahead, this time is meant to help you not me

Rebuttal

-Everything said in 1st rebuttal must be responded to in the following speech (2nd rebuttal) or I consider it conceded. Don't try to respond later/access something that was attacked. If your opponent drops attacks, tell me and extend it!

-Interact with your opponent's arguments directly! Everyone reads generic blocks, but if your responses interact directly with their evidence/specific link chain, I'll bump your speaks. I think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

Summary

-You should collapse! Extend offense & defense, weighing needs to start here if not in rebuttal.

-Don't bring up new things here unless front lining.

-Extend everything you want me to vote on! I'll only look to things said earlier in the round if there is nothing left for me to vote off at the end (unlikely).

Final focus

-I really like a review of your points and attacks that still stand, but I primarily want voters and weighing to happen in this speech. Everything extended should be from summary, including weighing.

-This is the most important speech, in my opinion, so make sure to drive through your voters for the round if you want to win.

Weighing

-Don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true, and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant.

-Logical weighing (xyz will or won't happen/this is better long-term) is okay, if well explained, but I prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing.

-If both teams end up at the same impact, I have to look to the stronger/best-defended link chain. But in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

-Do not! weigh on arguments you have no access to.

Progressive arguments

-Since it's PF I'll only evaluate dis-ads and theory shells if a severe violation has occurred (i.e. the opponent discriminated against you on sexuality, race, etc. )

-I will not evaluate theory unless prior consent has been given by either party before the round has started (I need to hear both sides firmly agree, the absence of no doesn't mean yes)

-I prefer substance over everything

-I'm more of a trad judge, so try to keep that in mind when running progressive args

Other

-Please pre-flow before the round! It makes things run a lot faster in the long term.

-Give me the order before speeches (Off-the-clock roadmaps <3).

-I'll try to disclose every round and give an oral rfd (If allowed).

-I won't usually call for cards unless I'm told to or it's heavily weighed on. If a card I call for is misused I'll drop all arguments involving it. Paraphrased cases are okay, but cut and use evidence fairly.

-I firmly believe in tech>truth, so if something is false or you think I need to call for evidence, tell me, because I won't unless you give a valid reason as to why I should.

-Please ask questions/postround if you want, but be nice.

-I'll time every speech/prep but I expect you to as well. 10+ seconds overtime=lower speaks

-Voting for you should be easy, so weigh, extend, refute, do all the things you should in a typical round. If the round gets messy to the point where there is nothing I can vote on, I'll default to the first speaking team.

Speaks

-Everyone's speaks start at 28, I'll drop/raise as the round progresses.

-Follow the paradigm!

-Read content warnings as needed

-Most importantly, be respectful, nice, & overall don't take things too seriously and you'll end with high speaks.

-Please make sure to either find something enjoyable or educational about your round

Meghan Avis Yen Episcopal HS - Houston/Bellaire

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 12:37 PM CDT

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

Follow precedence with few mistakes
Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

Maggie Yuan Dulles High School

Katherine Yue Hire

Jerry Zeng Dulles High School

Jingmei Zhang Dulles High School

Yue Zhang Elkins High School

Login to Tabroom

The Dulles Classic

2023 — Sugar Land, TX/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges