Tabroom.com

Bowie Lampasas Swing

2023 — Austin, TX/US

LHS-PF Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Cristian Abarca Hire

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 12:08 AM CDT

[BowieHS'23] PF, DX, & WSD; [GWU'27]

[Email] cristian.abarca@gwu.edu

Public Forum Debate:

TLDR: Flow judge, good with speed, tech over truth, I want to be on the email chain, not interventional, don't be abusive.

Similar Outlooks: My view on debate is very similar to those of my former teammates Grant Barden and Fionella Caputo. I discuss many of the same perspectives, outlooks, and issues here as they do in their paradigms.

A Couple of Specifics:

Cases. I'm open to pretty much anything here. I might give +1 speaks if you run something creative, or otherwise not stock. After all, debate loses its productivity if competitors have the exact same round again and again. If you're spreading you MUST send a document BEFORE the speech.

Impact Warranting & Terminalization. I would think this is obvious....ALL IMPACTS MUST BE WARRANTED & TERMINALIZED. Too many debaters are failing to do this, particularly with extremely common impacts. (I.e., "Nuke War → Extinction" needs a warrant and terminalized impact [e.g., death], it is not presumed.) Examine opponents' arguments for lack of warranting and terminalization, there's a high chance it's there.

Summary & Final Focus. What's in the final needs to be in the summary, the first gets a little latitude. If you make abusive new arguments or false claims (like your opponents dropping something they didn't) I dock speaks. Also, collapse and weigh.

Framework. Defaults to cost-benefit, but anything's fine. Frameworks must be warranted. Be careful with stuff anyone can tie into, like structural violence, that your opponents will probably just concede, and you've wasted time. I love hyper-specific frameworks built for a particular case. If you want to contest a framework, please do so as soon as possible. (Not mandatory, but it makes the round easier to understand, and thus more likely I'll understand why I need to vote for you.)

Extensions. These must be present but don't need to be especially in-depth. Make sure to include uniqueness, links, and impacts. If you are going for a turn: YOU MUST EXTEND YOUR OPPONENTS' LINK CHAIN. If you don't, I can't vote on the turn. If your opponents don't extend, make sure to bring it up in a speech, it makes it much easier to evaluate as part of the round (DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM THIS).

Frontlining. The second rebuttal must frontline. Defense isn't sticky.

Calling for Evidence. Despite my desire to be included on an email chain, I will only review evidence for abuses if specifically asked to by a particular team. Only read the evidence you have on hand, it shouldn't take forever and a day to retrieve, if it does, I dock speaks quickly. A hyperlink you found on Duck Duck Go mid-round isn't evidence. If you want to find something mid-round to read, you must also properly full-format cut it mid-round too. Also, one of those fancy hyperlinks that highlights the text when you click on it does not count.

Notes on Speech Docs. Two things here: (1) Only include what you will/plan/hope to read on your doc. Don't include evidence or rhetoric you are certain won't be read on the doc. Strategies like "what's red we don't read" just serve to confuse everyone. If you don't understand what I mean here, don't worry about this. (2) Docs should only be sent through irreversible means, they shouldn't be able to be un-sent after a round. The classic example of this is with Google Docs. Not once have I been on a shared Google Doc that wasn't immediately un-shared after the round or had the download or copy features disabled. There are also evidence ethics concerns as teams can insert new evidence into the doc after a speech and falsely claim that it was read as it was "in the speech doc."

Cross. I'm listening to cross, but I'm not flowing it. If a key point is made here, it needs to be brought up in a speech to make it into my flow. I do evaluate cross for speaker points. If you are excessively rude or stage a soliloquy that rivals those of Shakespeare to crowd out your opponents, I dock speaks fast.

Grand. I'm fine skipping grand cross, but doing so means the round goes straight to finals. Skipping grand is not an excuse to award yourselves more prep time to remedy poor choices in prep time allocations earlier in the round.

Paraphrasing. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. While I won't directly dock you anything if you do, let's say if someone paraphrases I would be more than content to hear a theory shell calling it out.

Trigger Warnings. If you are wondering whether an argument needs a trigger warning, it probably does. These should also be anonymous, I'd suggest an anonymous Google form. If you read a harmful argument without a trigger warning, I will be very perceptive to a theory shell on the matter. (For clarification, "wipeout" and "spark" arguments need trigger warnings, you are telling everyone in the round that they should die.)

Weighing. Please do this. There are two types of legitimate weighing: timeframe and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a derivative of these two (i.e. scope, extinction, try-or-die, pre-req) or is illegitimate. Most notably, please steer clear of using "probability" or "strength-of-link" weighing as both are low-key abusive and amount to either: (1) new un-warranted defense claims; or (2) the statement "don't vote for my opponent, I don't know why they're wrong, but they probably are." Less common, but even more ludicrous is "cherry-picked" evidence analysis. DON'T do this. ALL EVIDENCE IN DEBATE IS CHERRY-PICKED at the point a debate case is an agglomeration of evidence that forms a specific narrative. While weighing is important, don't spend too much time here. It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it.

A2: Weighing. Except in the occasional situation where it might be advantageous to concede to your opponents' weighing mechanism, you must rebut their weighing. It can be easy to overlook weighing in a busy round, yet it can prove to be fatal. Too many teams end up losing despite superior argumentation because they lost the weighing debate even though they won large portions of their offense.

Timing. It is not the judge's responsibility to time y'all. While I likely will do so for reference, y'all should time yourselves and hold each other accountable for staying on time. The only time it MIGHT be okay to go overtime is if your opponents have already done so.

Speed. I'm good with speed/spreading. When spreading, it is NOT okay to compromise on clarity. If you are not clear, I'll shout "CLEAR" two times before docking speaks. If you're pushing 300 wpm, you MUST send a doc BEFORE the speech. You must also slow down on analytics (presuming they're not on the doc), and you MUST signpost when going off the doc.

Signposting/OTRs. Please signpost and give an off-time roadmap. The only thing worse than not giving one is giving one and not following it.

Presumption. If there's no offense in the round, I'll vote for the status quo (which is usually, but not always, the negative). That is unless a team presents and wins an argument in-round that a presumption ballot must act differently. If you do this, warrants need to be in rebuttal or (first) summary, there can't be a new-in-final presumption argument because you've just now realized you don't have offense.

Post-Rounding. It's fine, ask as many questions as needed for you to properly understand my decision. Feel free to email too.

Theory. Keep theory to check back for abuse. That being said, you are the ultimate arbiter of what you consider abuse. If you're alleging abuse, you need to read the shell immediately after that abuse. Friv theory might have a place in PF, but it is certainly not to steam-roll some novices who don't understand it for a cheap win. It's clear when this is a team's goal. If reading theory, shells don't need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final. I don't expect a word-for-word extension, but its spirit or intention shouldn't fluctuate.

Disclosure Theory Specifically. I'm on the fence on whether disclosure is beneficial, I don't lean to either side, so I'm open to seeing it run. That being said, please keep the following in mind. First, see the note about the new TFA rules below, if applicable. Second, I stand vehemently against the all-too-common 'big-schools, small-schools' standard, particularly when it is run by a big school against a small school. Disclosure might be good. A big school spreading theory against a small school, telling them what's best for them while asking me to down them is ridiculous. Put simply, if you're a big school and run this standard against a small school, I'll down you. I'm more than happy to vote for disclosure, even potentially for big schools against small schools, just use other standards.

Ks. I'm willing to go here. I've used common Ks like Capitalism and Securitization. However, if you're doing something uncommon make sure you explain the literature as I am likely not familiar with it. (Like theory, don't use Ks for a cheap win, they should be part of a productive debate. Once again, if you use this to steam-roll novices......I WILL DOWN YOU.)

Tricks. I am open to these, but I have a very low bar as to what is a sufficient response against them. So, you're welcome to read "nothing's the cause of anything" but I'll consider your opponent calling your argument dumb a sufficient response.

Blippy. Don't be. This is usually a cheap excuse to not provide adequate warranting or terminalization. See above.

TKOs. (Technical Knock-Outs.) TKOs are stupid. Even if a team has eliminated all of their opponent's paths to the ballot early in the round, there is still ample time for that team to make technical errors in later speeches leading to their loss, or for the opponent to introduce independent offense or weighing (if sufficiently early in the round) to remedy the situation. I have seen both of these eventualities occur. As TKOs preclude necessary argumentation, if you go for a TKO, I WILL DOWN YOU.

IVIs. (Poor-Man's Theory.) IVIs are usually stupid, particularly evidence ethics IVIs. Shell format is nearly always superior as unstructured IVIs can be exceedingly vague, tricky to weigh, and hard to nail down in-round.

Ethical Ballots. If your opponents are being discriminatory, I'm more than happy to down your opponents off of it via one of two pathways: (1) A theory shell on the matter. (2) If it's blatantly present, beyond the argumentation a theory shell entails (i.e. racist, sexist, etc.), please bring it up in a speech. However, if it's never mentioned in the round I won't be able to vote off of it.

Economics. I'm pursuing a BS in Economics, and as such I understand economic realities. Please make sure that if you're running an econ argument, like interest rates, that you know what you're talking about and aren't stumbling around in the dark. I'm not adding this disclaimer out of being biased against poorly run econ argumentation, but rather if your econ argumentation makes no sense it's hard to look away from it unless it goes completely conceded.

On the Recent Amendment to the TFA Constitution Regarding Disclosure... as some of you may be aware, the TFA has recently adopted an amendment to the TFA Constitution that reads: "Tournament directors may stipulate that judges at their tournament may not base their decision on [the] disclosure of cases or the lack thereof." Given this, if you intend to run disclosure theory, please first ensure that the tournament, if operating under the TFA, hasn't stipulated that judges are unable to vote on it. If this is the case, regardless of whether you win disclosure on the flow, I will be unable to vote for you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I very rarely competed in LD debate, thus limiting my exposure to the format's standard practices. However, given my participation in rather progressive PF, I should be fine evaluating the majority if not all of LD argumentation. Relevant commentary above on debate in general applies, that being said I won't constrain progressive argumentation in LD the way that I do in PF (as detailed above). Please make sure everything is neatly on the doc, or otherwise clearly signposted in the speech as not being on the doc. Lastly, don't assume I know/am familiar with the literature, particularly on less common subjects. Please don't hesitate to ask any clarifying questions.

World Schools' Debate:

I don't think there is too much to be said here. When it comes to how I will decide on the round, I will decide before assigning points. While style is important, I won't vote purely for it. Line-by-line analysis is not necessary and can be replaced with "worlds-comparison." All new arguments need to be included in the 1 or the 2. As for POIs, the 1-3 should be taking at least 2 POIs, but I'd recommend three. On the one hand, please don't be spamming POIs, but also if you are speaking at least gesture if you plan to (or not) take a POI so someone isn't just left standing there. Lastly, don't be abusive, or try to crowd your opponents out of the debate, I will mark you down for it. If there's anything I didn't address here, please feel free to ask about it before the round starts.

raven awosika Dripping Springs High School

Olivia Baird James Bowie High School

Grant Barden James Bowie High School

Last changed on Mon July 15, 2024 at 10:53 PM CDT

Bowie '24, Trinity '28, did 4 years of PF, sucked at lay debate and was pretty good at tech, got 1 silver bid and state qualled 2x

gbarden05@gmail.com

tech>truth

I will vote on dropped arguments as long as they have any warrant no matter how non-sensical or untrue, I didn't run stock my last 2 years so I adore whack stuff

Basically a standard tech judge, everything below is stuff where I think my stance differs from the "norm" or there isn't an established norm, if you've got any questions about any of this please ask I'm happy to answer

Edit: with how long my paradigm has gotten I'm starting to think I might not be a standard tech judge, but I suppose the sentiment still applies

In my view it is my job to vote for the side that debates best, seeing as I believe the first-speaking team is generally at a disadvantage that means I will presume for them.

TLDR: Terminalize your impacts, links>weighing, extend links for turns, theory and ks are fine at bid tournies, much better at judging theory than ks, cut your cards, fine with speed just send doc

If your opponents are being racist sexist etc. bring it up in a speech, I'm more than happy to vote off it

Terminalization:

I'm putting this at the top since it's one of the most weirdly common issues I've seen. The only impact that exists in a round without framework is death, and maybe poverty/starvation. Nuke war and recession are not impacts. The EFFECTS of these things are impacts, but if you don't list the effects of these there is effectively no impact. If a lack of impact terminalization isn't called out in the round I'll evaluate the impact based on what I think is most reasonably logical, which you may not like. I will generally not accept new impact terminalization or warranting after the speech where the impact was read.

Ramblings on weighing:

Pre-reqs and link-ins are great, magnitude is too but don't spend more time than needed, typically just a basic comparison will suffice. Severity I think is underutilized and can be very persuasive, at least on pov v death debates. Timeframe can be great defense to take out an opponents solvency but if it's done like this it needs to be in rebuttal. Probability is fake, saying your opponent's impacts are unlikely is in reality just defense. I've only ever seen probability used to either say your opponents impacts won't happen but you're not really sure why, or to bring up new defense in summary. Neither of these I'll vote on.

Overall, it doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it. That being said, if both sides win their links and only one side weighs, my ballot will be very simple.

Framework:

Experience: 100+ rounds

I think this is absurdly underutilized and when it is used tends to just be sv framework. I love to see frameworks beyond sv that are hyper-specific to cases or difficult to link into. I think this is generally the most strategic use of framework and I very rarely see it done.

Ramblings on extensions:

I'm not a stickler for in-depth extensions, I could care less about authors or card names. Just please extend uniqueness, links, and impacts and keep extensions consistent from speech to speech. The less contentious an issue is in the round the lower my threshold for an adequate extension of it. If nuke war causes extinction is dropped throughout the round, I don't want you to spend 20 seconds extending why nuke war causes extinction. I'm much more reluctant to discount something as not extended well enough if it isn't brought up that the extensions were inadequate. MAKE SURE TO EXTEND YOUR OPPONENT'S UNIQUENESS, LINKS, AND IMPACTS IF YOU'RE GOING FOR A TURN, if you don't I can't vote on the turn. However, I only need an argument to be extended in one summary speech and one final focus. If your opponent extended a contention in first summary that you have a turn on, you just need to extend the turn in second summary, not the entire contention.

Theory:

Experience: 15ish rounds

If you run theory against a team that is clearly novices at a non-bid/state tournament barring some egregious violation I'll down you. No one gets anything out of that and it's just a waste of everyone's time.

Disclosure might be good, disclosure theory against big schools is meh, and a big school running disclosure theory against a small school is stupid. I'll try not to hack against it but I'm definitely biased, as I refused to ever disclose for the back half of my career. If you're from a small school and I'm no longer on the circuit email me and I'll send you my AT disclosure file. If a big school runs a small schools standard against a small school I will stop flowing and write my ballot. Telling a small school what's best for them while saying they should lose is dumb.

I adore squirrely we meets against disclosure theory and will generally be extremely biased towards text of the interp>spirit of the interp, if you think that you have the right to effectively make a rule in the debate activity I expect you not to leave loopholes in said rule and will not be empathetic if you do. The exception would be things like racism bad theory or things of a similar vein.

If you disclose full text and run disclosure theory it shouldn't really impact my evaluation of the round unless brought up but just know that I hate you.

Trigger warnings: I generally do not think these are necessary and will be reluctant to vote on them. I should do more research on them but Gabe Rusk's paradigm was extremely persuasive to me and changed how I view trigger warnings, would highly recommend reading it independent of debate. If you think an argument might actually be especially triggering to some people I'm skeptical of whether you should be reading it at all, but this represents an extreme minority of cases.

Other friv theory: If it's a bid tournament go crazy, if it's a local both teams should be ok with having a friv round and should make that clear before round, I'll still evaluate it either way but speaks will be very bad, my threshold for responses will be significantly lower, and it will make me sad.

Default competing interps and yes RVIs

K's:

Experience: 8 or so rounds

Same as theory, don't run this against a team that's clearly novices at a non-bid/state tournament, neither side will get much out of it and it'll probably be pretty hard to watch.

I know and understand the basic structure of a k but haven't ever run one myself, so I will definitely need some explanation. I think I'm moderately familiar with cap, foucault, set col, and securitization, as well as most other k's to a much lesser degree. I'd prefer k's that have some link to the topic or the opponent's case. I'm definitely not the best judge for a k round but I'll do my best. I will be extremely receptive to theory against new ks in rebuttal as the speech times in PF make these extremely difficult to properly debate and evaluate. I won't vote on killjoy, just read any other alt.

Tricks:

Experience: 3 or so rounds

These are terrible. I'll evaluate them at bid/state tournaments or if both sides agree (for some unholy reason) that they want to have a tricks round. If I can understand the trick after it is read without prior knowledge, I will vote on it. If I have no idea what you are talking about I won't vote on it, regardless of whether it is conceded. My bar for responses to tricks is based on how inane they are. "That's stupid if you buy that every debate would be pointless" will be a sufficient response 90% of the time.

Speed:

Experience: I generally maxed out at 275-300wpm and my partner could hit 300wpm pretty easily, probably 150+ rounds where at least one competitor went 275wpm+

Anything pushing 300wpm I need a doc. This is counter-intuitive but if you are clear then I'm willing to flow off the doc, if not I will only flow what I understand as I don't think you should ever be limited by my pen/comprehension speed. If you can read 350wpm and be clear I'll make sure I get it all on my flow. If you can't read 250wpm clearly I'm not going to be willing to use your speech doc to clear things up. If you read analytics not on the doc slow down and make it very clear that you're not reading from the doc anymore.

If you want to argue that you can't understand more than 250, 275, etc wpm because of a hearing disorder I expect you to be able to provide evidence and explain why a speech doc doesn't suffice. If you want to argue that you shouldn't have to debate at spreading levels because of a speaking disorder I generally won't care as you don't need to spread to win. I also did years of speech therapy for pronunciation and mumbling issues but learning to spread was probably one of the most helpful things.

Evidence:

Send all cards with tags and cites before they are read, in the order they are to be read, as well as any analytics you have written down but I don't expect all analytics to be on the doc. Taking a bit of time to send the speech doc is fine. Taking time to get the speech doc in order or whatnot is prep. PDF or word doc only.

Paraphrasing is bad and I hate it, I won't consciously hack against it as long as you at least have a version with semi-cut cards you can supply but I'm definitely biased against it.

A hyperlink without a card and text base isn't evidence, if you want to find something mid-round to read you better cut it mid-round too.

READ AUTHOR NAMES AND YEARS, I don't know why some people don't do this, any evidence you don't do this for I'm going to pretend you just read an analytic.

If I catch you clipping I'll down you. Don't ever run clipping theory unless you have evidence. If I caught the clipping I'll vote on it regardless of if it is brought up, if I didn't then I don't want you to spend time on an argument that you can't verify.

Speaks:

Speaks are stupid and an awful measurement system, so I'll give perfect speaks or as close as I can unless you do something that's bad for debate or annoys me, in which case they'll go down some.

List of stuff I think is bad for debate, annoys me, or makes me sad that I haven't already mentioned:

Stealing prep

Taking a long time to send evidence

Saying your opponents dropped something they didn't

Having "bring me x for 30 speaks/do x weird thing that's probably stupid", the idea of making good speaks something you have to pay for/make yourself look like an idiot for is kinda yucky and I hated seeing it on paradigms when I debated, I'll look to see if you have a paradigm during cross probably because I'll be bored

Going very much overtime (unless your opponents did before you in which case it's totally free game)

Making a very bad strategic decision

Extending something in final that wasn't in summary

Being a bully in cross

Not answering a direct question with a direct answer in cross

Completely incomprehensible spreading, my bar for incomprehensible is pretty high though

Doing something different from your roadmap

Bad signposting/no signposting

Taking longer than 15 seconds to preflow, do it before round if so

Cross:

Cross is binding so I'll pay attention but it'll only have an effect on the round if it's brought up in a speech. Skipping grand and using it to prep is fine, 90% of the time grand is pointless. I don't like open cross most of the time, you should be able to hold your own and just pass a note or something if you need a question asked, if it's a super fast hyper-technical round it's more ok.

Other:

Flex prep is totally fine

Don't run death or misery good

If you're the last flight post round me all you want, I'm a debate nerd and will be happy to defend my decision until I get bored. Just keep it decently civil.

Novice:

Don't do anything too whacky, including framework, it's not what novice is for, everything else from above still applies but just do your best.

Events besides PF:

I'm sorry I'm your judge, if it's a debate event I'll probably evaluate it the same way I would evaluate a PF round, if it's a speech event idek

I've done 5 or so LD rounds and the same for policy so I'll understand the speech structure and the extremely basic norms, beyond that good luck, I pray I never have to judge you

Barbara G W Brawn Hire

Patricia calel Hire

El Contreras L C Anderson High School

Last changed on Tue July 16, 2024 at 12:07 PM CDT

My pronouns are they/them/theirs. Please do not call me ma’am. I know it's a southern respect thing but it's icky to me. If you need a title for me, I unironically like being called judge, Judge Contreras is fine, just Contreras works too. My students call me Coach, and that's also fine. Teens, please don't call me El (that's one southernism I stand by!)

Affiliations:

Head Coach and social studies teacher at L.C. Anderson High School in Austin, TX since 2022.

San Marcos High School- I competed all four years in high school, I did extemp, congress, and UIL Policy.

Order:

1. Speech

2. Debate

3. Congress

4. General Comments

1. Speech people!!!!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. I just won’t do that. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. Also, normalize giving content and trigger warnings before your performance!! Give people a chance to take care of themselves. If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!! I'm in a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

2. Debate comments (PF, LD, CX, World Schools)

Just disclose. I know LD's norm is sending 30 minutes before round, I think that's a great norm.

In PF, send case docs. Don't be secretive with your cards. Your opponents should not have to disclose a disability in order to get you to send docs. I also think sending a speech doc for rebuttal and summary is a good norm. This is not (necessarily) something I'll down you for but it could be, if you're intentionally being harmful.

I will evaluate anything as long as it's warranted and extended. I won't make arguments for you, tell me why and how you're winning. I'll vote tech over truth unless the truth overwhelms the tech. Sticky defense is so fake, extend your arguments if you want to win them. Unextended = dropped. Proper extensions, tag and cite, claim, warrant, impact!!

Both partners need to participate in grand cross. PF is a partner event! No, you can't skip grand cross. I'm listening to cross and waiting to hear the questions from cross brought into round.

Please do a www.speechdrop.net room, it is a fantastic site, and I will definitely pop in and read cards and cases if you have the speechdrop room set up. Always send case, always send speech docs. I am #notsponsored, just a fan! My email is down below.

Spell out all the abbreviations you use in round. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. People know what the UN is, the EU, etc, people may not know BRI, any random trade agreement, etc.

speed: You don't have to go at a conversational pace but nobody should be full-on-spreading in PF. When you're off the doc, you have to go slower. I try not to flow off the doc but I will use it as support if you're faster than I can follow. I'm not in a debate round to read off your case doc, I'm in round to hear YOU. Slow down on taglines, analytics, authors- basically anything you think is vital to my decision.

PF-specific comments:

I'll vote on anything, not a huge fan of theory, not the best judge to evaluate theory
i love frameworks! they should be well-developed. blippy frameworks don't win framework debates
extensions are not just saying "Extend my contention 2", you must extend the card tag/cite and the claim, warrant, and impact! Let me hear the link chain again!!
speaker points- these national tournaments keep giving me a rubric to use and I'm trying to apply that to all the realms I judge in. Points start at 28 and I adjust from there. Points will only be below a 27 if you did something harmful or rules/norms were horribly broken.
PFers, please read cards with actual taglines. "furthermore", "and", are not taglines. A tag is the thesis of the card, it is the summary of the content. I've been seeing a lot of that lately- it's lazy and bad practice.

LD-specific:

I don't judge LD often, not as comfortable with LD speeds but I'll use the doc
I will evaluate k's, as long as they're well-developed and defended. i know theory is normative in LD and I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly and wisely. probably not the best judge for your theory debates
consider me pretty lay, generally pretty trad. Read me a standard, read me a value, slow it down!!
I know this event is generally more technical but again, don't assume I know what you're talking about!! spell out all your abbreviations, provide definitions (especially if you're reading a K), do your best to make the round and the space more accessible!
pref me slightly better than a lay judge
I come from pf so arguments such as kritiks and theory will make less sense to me butI’lltry my best to evaluate them

email- theedebatecoach@gmail.com

and

docs.anderson@gmail.com

please <3

This message is specifically for competitors in debate events; I value respect in the round. Please don’t be rude in front of me. It doesn’t make me laugh, it reminds me of uncomfortable/unpleasant rounds where my competitors were rude to me or my partner. That has no business in a debate space, please don’t bring that energy into a round. This goes double for people in privileged positions who make women and gender/racial minorities uncomfortable or unsafe in the debate space. Not only will I chew you out and tank your speaks, but I will also let your coach know about the harmful practices. it's on all of us to make the debate space inclusive and equitable.

TLDR- be nice, be kind, and be self-aware.

3. Congress comments:

I did congressional debate all four years I competed in high school, I really enjoyed it and love watching a good Congress round. I have a lot of respect for a strong PO and usually reward that with a higher ranking. POs that struggle with precedence, maintaining decorum, and Robert's rules of order will have that reflected in their rank.

Clash, clash, clash! Put the debate into congressional debate.

There's a line between sassy and rude. Tread it carefully.

General comments:

broke: "is anyone not ready?"

woke: "is everyone ready?"

something that I genuinely appreciate in every event is a trigger warning before potentially triggering performances and speeches. controversially, I care about all of your experiences in a round and would like to give everyone an opportunity to opt out. If you’re a spectator or a competitor in a speech room, you deserve the opportunity to step out. If you’re competing in a debate round, you have every right to ask your competitors to read a version of their case that excludes the triggering material. As a judge, I reserve the right to step out/turn off my camera for a moment before you give your performance.

In a debate round, I’d appreciate that triggering material cut out. I don’t think intense/graphic depictions of human suffering add much to your overall case anyway, I’d rather you extend cards in that time or frontline or do anything besides exploit human suffering.

If I correct your pronunciation of a word in my ballot, it’s genuinely to educate you. It’s hard to know how to pronounce a word you’ve never heard aloud, just read (looking at you, Reuters!)

I have a degree in history, with a focus on Latin American history. Keep that in mind when discussing issues focused on Latin America. Feel free to ask me for a reading list to better understand conflicts, revolutions, and government suppression (including US intervention) in Guatemala, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, and more.

If you are spectating an event and are fully texting in front of me or attempting to talk to/distract a competitor, I’m going to ask you to leave. I will not warn you once, I have a zero-tolerance policy for disrespecting competitors or interfering with competition in that way.

Rajveer Dhesi Hire

Alicia Hernandez Dripping Springs High School

Aishwarya Kishore Flower Mound High School None

Ivan Lin Westwood

Harsimran Mann Hire None

Colby Menefee Hire

Alex Paulson Hire

Last changed on Sat February 27, 2021 at 5:31 PM EDT

Congress:

Authorship/Sponsorship must address the issues in the status quo and why the legislation solves them, at the very least explain what the legislation does.

1st Neg must provide the foundation of the negation (this is the time to your generic/stock arguments).

2nd Cycle needs to start clashing and providing unique points/giving stock points not already brought into the debate.

3rd Cycle+ constructive arguments need to be unique but still topical.

~4th Cycle speeches need to start being half-refs.

~7th cycle (or when only a few people haven't spoken on the item yet) speeches should be crystals, which only consist of clash, grouping arguments, and voters.

I'm not stupid. Although NSDA classifies it as debate, congress isn't real debate and is very presentation focused. Your speaking presentation will be a major factor on my ballot, but if your arguments are non-topical or if they don't make sense you will be dropped.

POs: Know your parliamentary procedure. Be commanding! Only use your gavel for the following reasons- to call session in & out of order, time signals during speeches & questioning, and to call decorum. Do NOT gavel tap to call for speakers or questioners.

Yes, I did notice the precedence error you made during direct questioning. Do I care? As long as it isn't hurting the flow of the round/a strong bias towards or against another competitor then no. However, if you shave time off questioning to look efficient I WILL care and you will be immediately dropped. I know all the tricks, so please don’t try any of them.

You are not guaranteed to break if you PO, but I also give you an equal chance to get the 1 in the chamber.

Extemp:

Try not to go into grace period, but it is not the end of the world if you do. I am not tied to the norms of extemp structure-wise, so feel free to give me a 2 point or heck why not a 1 point speech (just make sure it's good).

Debate Events:

Not experienced enough in any of them, but I’ll try not to do the things that my friends tell me they hate judges doing. I will try to flow, tech > truth, and I’m very knowledgeable about politics and current events but I am sorry if you get me as your judge.

Athan Lee Swick Hire

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 4:39 AM CDT

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

Hi! Below are my paradigms and some resources for different events. Before all of that though is a little about myself! My name is Athan and my pronouns are They/Them/Theirs. The most formal thing I'm okay with being called is "Judge". I'm currently a college student (HOOK 'EM) who competed in speech and debate for 3 years at a high school that didn't have a lot of resources in general and specifically in speech and debate. In high school I did Policy, LD, WSD, Congress, Extemp, Prose, & Poetry. I look forward to being your judge, and if you have any questions at all feel free to ask in person or shoot me an email.

The biggest thing on my paradigm is funnily enough, not specific to any event. In a round, I will DROP or RANK LAST anybody who makes bigoted arguments or takes a hostile action. I don't know the beef, and if I think you're being unfair in round my ballot will reflect that. More than anything, Speech and Debate is an activity of growth that should be available to anyone who wishes to participate, if you are an active hindrance to that I won't tolerate it. AlsoPLEASE GIVE CONTENT WARNINGS if your material calls for it. Speech and Debate is notorious for getting into sensitive subject matter very quickly and seemingly out of left field.

Debate: OKAY! This ALL subject to change as I judge more rounds and change my understanding what I believe debate to be. Last edit April, 2024

I think one of the biggest things that separates debate events from IEs is that debtors have the opportunity to just create the rules. That's something that I quite honestly love and wish was possible in IEs. In spirit of that, that my entire debate paradigm is up for debate. I am willing to change my paradigm in round if a good enough argument is made against it. With one exception, ✨Evidence Ethics✨. Please please please please please please please please please please PLEASE be ethical with your evidence. Properly cite it, don't lie about what your evidence says, where it's from, or anything similar. I've dropped debaters in the past for this, I will probably drop debaters in the future for it, it's sadly incredibly rampant in the community (at locals especially), and it's a very serious offense in my eyes.

Spreading? Huge fan! Can't super keep up with it though. I did Trad Policy in HS, so my flowing ability reflects that. If you speak so fast that I miss something that's tough I won't flow it [which is why you extend]. If you do decide to speak fast I won't drop you, but please slow down and really enunciate at specific things you want writen on my flow verbatim/paraphrased closely. If I really can't hear you I'll yell "clear" and I'll expect you to slow down and enunciate.

Moving along, who said debate had to be boring or full of jargon? I am a fan of style! Don't just read evidence, give me analysis on how it functions in-round and do it with some flair if possible. Make me laugh? That's some extra speaks. Do anything memorable? Higher rank than someone who didn't. At its core this is a public speaking event, it's meant to build your communicative abilities, so take risks, be "lame", be "corny", be you.

Also ALSO, I like weird arguments. Is there some objectively bad / uncompetitive argument that you've been trying to find a round to use it in? Guess who's definitely open to voting for it (ME), so go crazy.

Lastly, I'm a fan of reading paradigms, so in an effort to incentivize that at the beginning or end of one your speeches say "Judge, you can't farm tuna, give me a speaker point" and I'll give you +1 speaks.

CX/Policy -

As it stands right now, I'm pretty sure I'm a mix of Tabula Rasa & Game Theorist, though honestly every debater should be skeptical of judges who just use a label and don't explain their positions or at the very least their history. I've been trying pretty hard to be a non-interventionist judge, but I was brought up Trad, so it's a battle. Quite literally, I have two wolves inside me. I like to think I'd vote any argument, a concrete list of arguments I know I'd vote on are Theory, Topicality, Ks, K Affs, Case Args, Plans, Disadds, CounterPlans, and Tricks. Be warned, I have very little experience with K debate, so if you run a K please take the time to explain to me how it functions. I'm pretty big on theory arguments having voters, so don't just tell me "X thing is bad" and hope I'll take it off the flow impact it out. Counterinterp > Reasonability; please have standards so I can effectively judge both interps. If you are trying to win on theory and your opponent is any level of competent / the abuse isn't incredibly blatant you should almost definitely be collapsing onto theory, or, at the very least, spending a substantially amount of time on it. On final speeches, I love voters! Mmmmmm I love voters so much. Tell me what I should be voting and why. Ballots for rounds I judge with people who write my ballot for me are usually look like what they told me to write out in my ballot.

LD - I did LD and Policy in HS. I'm open to progressive LD arguments, just not its speed (see spreading above). I am a fan of framework debate, I think it gives LD a lot of arguments that just won't fly in CX. Util is boring and basic, useful, but boring and basic. Util has a myriad of counter-arguments that allow for interesting debate. If the debate comes down to Util vs Util please for the love of god do impact calculus. With all of that said, I do believe you can win framework and lose the round, so don't go all in unless you have a very clear line of reasoning that prevents the other side from accessing offense through your framework (There are theory args that attempt to win round on framework alone, which is something I am open to voting on). On case, feel free to go crazy. Like I mentioned earlier I'm here for it all, that means K, Theory, Topicality, Disads, Counterplans, Advantage Take Outs, and Turns. Really the one thing I'm not a huge fan of in LD is extinction args, really in general, but esp in LD. If you have an extinction impact you better have a solid link chain and a damn good warrant. Have fun, don't be intentionally abusive.

PF - I think it's tough that this event is explicitly formatted not to incentivize K's and to a lesser extent Theory as well. I'll def still vote on them if you run though. Look to policy for my paradigm.

Congress - Briefly, I view Congress as more so a debate event than a speech event. That means I'm not looking too much at the speeches side long as what you say is killer. If you give a crazy rebuttal that delinks and/or turns the main points contention and generates solid defense or offense for your side’s key points but sounds robotic while you do it, I’ll probably still rank you highly, esp if most of the other time has been spent on pretty speeches and surface level analysis. To further, I really really like analysis that changes how I feel as though the round should be argued. I will almost definitely rank you highly if you consistently introduce analysis like that. PO will probably break in round as long as they aren’t more so a detriment than a help. Most of all have fun with it. Congress can get so boring so feel free to add some spice.

That being said, congress is also a speaking event and so I'll be looking for those things that let me know you're an effective communicator. Things specific to congress are presence, LARPing, and understanding of speaking cycle. Congress people who exert influence over the chamber are noticed more readily by myself and a lot of other judges (if its through motions and POIs it also serves as a demonstration of the finer more technical points of parliamentary procedure which I enjoy). On LARPing I think you should lean into it and that in general it's just funny. The best congressional debaters lean into the fact that the event encourages the LARP and fully immerse themselves, their content, and their mannerisms within that context; if you ever find yourself wondering "Should I be more or less LARP-y" in a congress setting the answer is always more. Understanding speaking cycles I feel like is pretty self explanatory. Don't give me a speech that feels like a constructive as the 11 speaker, don't rehash points your side of the debate as mentioned 3+ times, give a crystallization speech at toward the end of the debate, and please for the love of god DONT be afraid to give a first affirmative or first negative, esp in competitive tournaments (like c'mon y'all quite literally you're the best of the best of the best, if you won't do it who will?) Finally the "Extemp" and "IEs" portion of my paradigm neatly sum up my ideas on what good speaking looks like. As a final note, I hate the super cookie cutter congress style. Please for the love of everything change it up, even if it's only the amount of cadences or times you raise your voice for emphasis.

WSD -I think every team should ask at least 1 POI, preferably 2 - 4 per speech. For worlds I place a lot more emphasis on argumentation than style, but if you do some stylistically cool things I'll reflect upon that favorably. I esp like when things seem to have been extemp-d in round, so good POI responses I find to be very neat.

Speech:

Extemp - By far my favorite event. Does the fact that it’s my best event have something to do with it?? Maybeeeeee. On what I like to see though? The first and most important thing are the basics. If you're unfamiliar, study up! You should have a strong grasp on macro-level organization and at least a understanding (consciously or not) of microlevel organization, you should be able to continue speaking after a stumble (big or small) in a coherent manner, your points should be logically sound (fallacies make my heart sad & your in round ranking low) and contain a Claim - Warrant - Impact (data too, but honestly warrant > data in extemp, you could just be making things up), and CONFIDENCE oh my goodness so many rounds can and have been won off of confidence alone.

-Also huge tip for novice extempers: presenting as an authority figure on your topic is big for a lot of extemp judges in the Central Texas Circuit, so it’ll be a huge help to your extemp career if you work on reaching the 6:30 mark consistently, sounding confident regardless of whether our not you feel confident, infusing emotion into your speech, and “professionalism” (this term is so nebulous and gives me the ick. a lot of extemp judges take it v seriously though).

The next thing I like to see is(assuming mastery of the basics) advocacy, advocacy, advocacy. As an extemper you are a story teller. Often times in extemp as a competitor you find yourself telling people about events that they have little to no understanding about, and so you control narrative. With this control of the narrative you should use it to center the people who are being harmed, esp those being harmed by the materialization of seemingly abstract societal concepts (like patriarchy, imperialism, etc). By the end of your speech I should have a clear idea of those who are being advocated for and the relationship they have between those who are perpetuating harm. Along with the content it can’t be underplayed how important it is for you to speak fluently. You can’t convey the story of another person if people won’t give you the time of day. This doesn’t mean I’ll rank you as last speaker if you stumble a few times, but long pauses, continual and frequent vocal breaks in fluency, or distracting body language won’t do you any favors. Punching down is a big no-no for me, esp in the realm of comedy I have ranked folks last in round for an inappropriate joke and I'm very much so prepared to do again without hesitation.

For my intermediate+ extempers I’ll be looking for style, flair, and little things that demonstrate your skill in the event and mastery of the more technical elements of the event like use of a theme (or extremely clear line of reasoning/convergent point), NON CANNED, TOPIC SPECIFIC INTROS (this is my #1 point of improvement, your AGD is my first introduction to your speaking and you want to start it off with something non-unique, low effort, and often times un-inventive? that makes me sad.)multiple rhetorical devices in speech, compelling SoS, high level organization (substructure), use of experts or highly qualified sources (professors, research studies, multinational service organizations, research centers, etc), mini agds before contentions, efficient use of time, effective use of performance space, and switches in general but esp mood/tone. Honestly my advice? If you make it to higher level tournaments, but are yet to break at one you need to go back to the fundamentals/basics. A lot of intermediate extempers I've encountered will do some really cool advanced stuff and then have multiple logical fallacies, improperly use their time, or (god forbid) not answer the question.

I'll be evaluating rounds on a range of factors and for sure won't immediately vote you down if you don't demonstrate perfect mastery over the elements listed, but it makes it a much harder, uphill battle to give you the 1 - 3 if you made an elementary level mistake but incorporated multiple advanced technical elements vs someone who should complete mastery over all fundamental concepts and showed budding knowledge of the more technical elements of the event.

As a final, please give me the publication/organization, author, and exact date of evidence you use in your speech. If you have a non-mainstream source, please qualify the author or the organization. This is an academic activity and I'll be looking for citations as such.

IEs - Honestly GLHF, like there's not much to say here. Me personally? I don't think it's a good idea to try taking major risks and/or highly tailoring your piece to judge preferences unless you're in an extremely stacked room, even then though judges have a tendency to be switched around, replaced, and/or absent. Though honestly it's in all those smaller tournaments and less important rooms that you should be the most creative in. Explore things you haven't thought of, do things you you've only ever considered in the abstract,HAVE FUN.

In any case, I pay a lot of attention to characterization - I want to see you become the character through properties and traits unique to them. Which also means I SHOULD FEEL A DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU START PERFORMING. I don't care who you are, I care who you become and whether or not you can consistently continue to be that person(or those persons) throughout your performance. Your volume and the emotions conveyed through your voice are vitally important too. You shouldn't be flat, people are dynamic and so should the emotions and people portrayed. I'm a huge proponent of using space effective manner, even if your event constrains you to a specific point in space I think there are ways for you to interact with the environment that make the piece more interesting and unique to the medium. I'm not super strict about time in IEs as long as you don't go over the grace period I generally don't care.

amlswick@gmail.com if you have any questions at all:)

Joseph Uhler Flower Mound High School

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 4:46 AM CDT

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

Login to Tabroom

Bowie Lampasas Swing

2023 — Austin, TX/US

LHS-PF Debate Paradigm List

Judges