Tabroom.com

Bridgeland CySprings Holiday Spectacular

2023 — NSDA Campus, TX/US

DEBATE Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Arush Adabala Greenhill School 2 rounds

Clement Agho-Otoghile Hastings HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CDT

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Austin Broussard Northland Christian School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 7:55 AM CDT

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexa s.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

Travis Cornett Hire 5 rounds

Natalie Creacy Cypress Ranch High School 6 rounds None

Nathan Gong Hire 6 rounds

Wyatt Hatfield Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Kailash Hemrajani Jordan High School 6 rounds

Barb Ixba Westlake High School 3 rounds

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is Bixba@eanesisd.net.

CX - I'm a Policy Maker, so I want to vote for something rather than against something. I like a NON-TOPICAL Counter Plans or a Kritik with a good Alternative. I will vote on Topicality if the Aff is proven not to be Topical. I do not vote for Disclosure Theory, Contact Theory, Dress Code Theory, etc. Please debate the topic; that is where I will vote. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. If you spread, you must be intelligible; if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I will give one verbal request for you to be "clear", and if you are still incomprehensible I will close my laptop or drop my pen to nonverbally indicate to you that I have stopped flowing. Have all evidence you plan to read up on your computer. If you take your time sharing evidence when requested, that is free prep time for your opponent, and I do not expect them to stop prepping while you find the card(s) to send. While I prefer closed CX, I will entertain open CX, but be careful not to dominate your partner as that could cost them speaker points. Of course remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent will cost you speaker points.

LD - I guess I'm an old school LD judge. I expect to be able to identify your Value and Criterion and that is the lens by which I weigh the round. I do not vote for Disclosure Theory, Contact Theory, Dress Code Theory, etc. Please debate the topic; that is where I will vote. Therefore, I will vote on Topicality if the Aff is proven not to be Topical. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. If you spread, you must be intelligible; if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I will give one verbal request for you to be "clear", and if you are still incomprehensible I will close my laptop or drop my pen to nonverbally indicate to you that I have stopped flowing. Evidence sharing is not "off the clock" and will count toward prep and/or speaking time. Of course remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent will cost you speaker points.

PF - I see PF as a watered down CX debate minus the Plan Text, if I'm being honest. So, see the paradigm for CX above please.

Congress - Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent may cost you the ballot. Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with scholarly sources. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet persuasive.

World Schools - Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent may cost you the ballot. Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with scholarly sources. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet persuasive.

Interp - The most important thing to me in an Interp performance is to portray genuine emotion. If you really feel it, the audience will too. Be a good audience member by avoiding distractions and giving your complete attention to the competitor performing at the moment. Being a good audience member also means staying the entire time unless you are cross entered as well as providing appropriate nonverbal feedback to the performance. Please don't "mean mug" or attempt to nonverbally intimidate another competitor. I appreciate a good binder trick and a creative approach while maintaining author's intent. In the Intro, I would ideally like a conversational tone that allows me to meet you, displays your understanding and connection to the subject matter, and sets up the performance well. Literature that contains profanity does not bother me as long as the profanity adds something to the message and is not superfluous.

Extemp - Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with an introduction, 2-3 main points, and a conclusion. I encourage 7-10 scholarly source citations throughout and would like to see that the sources add substance to the speech. Using a variety of types of sources such as state, national, and international as well as think tanks, periodicals, and books adds to the overall credibility of the presentation. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet informative or persuasive.

Minh Le Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

Background

I debated for Langham Creek Highschool in Houston in policy for 3 years, crossing over to LD my senior year. I primarily went for the K throughout my career, but was very flex and dabbled in every form of debate. I worked as an assistant coach in PF for SpiderSmart Sugarland and now work as an assistant CX and LD coach for Langham Creek Highschool.

Here is my wiki senior if you want to see what arguments I read.

Conflicts: Langham Creek Highschool - Heights Highschool

Separately Conflicted: Cypress Woods AZ

Short Overview

langhamdebatedocs@gmail.com - email chain, please title - - - Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg).

"Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks." - Aden Barton

Spreading is fine.

Read anything you want.

2/23/24 - Central Texas National Qualifiers

I will not care if you read progressive arguments against lay debaters, it is not your fault. I will care however if you take too long, I BEG that you keep speeches as SHORT as possible (i,e going for one line tricks, for 10 seconds and sitting down.) and do not overcover anything, this will be best for everyone in the room.

12/13/23 - STRAKE UPDATE

Too many of y'all are going for unsubstantive hidden tricks in front of me because I evaluate them, and I've downed them every single time. PLEASE, do not split the 2NR/2AR because I guarantee you that you're NOT doing enough work on them and you will NOT be happy with my decision when I decide to not pull the trigger on it because there's been a very SHALLOW extension.

General Thoughts

My views on debate are heavily influenced by my coaches and those who've helped me including, Eric Beane, Isaac Chao, and Sebastian Cho.

Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I feel as if lots of judges think it’s your responsibility as a debater to please us as judges, no, it is my responsibility to please you as debaters with a respectable and well thought out decision. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will always be ready to defend my decision. “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or make a determination on your personality on the basis of your reaction to my decision. I was always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest forms of respect.” – Vikas Burugu.

I will certainly reward good evidence if you have it. However, your evidence is only as good as you can explain it to me. “Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension.” – Rafael Pierry.

Read what you want and read it well. I do not personally believe the ballot is a referendum of you as a person, especially in highschool. 99% of debaters go through the stage where they read bad, stupid, and not well-thought-out arguments because they find them interesting. I don't think any of those people genuinely believe those positions, but rather are ignorant to how arguments can be harmful. The best thing I think we all derive from debate is reflexivity, if you think people's arguments are bad and violent, say so, beat them on it, the worse their argument is, the easier it is to beat, people will stop reading stuff after they get hit with a L25. Debate is great because people can read what they want and shift the norms, be innovative, be unique, do what you want, I encourage it.

Tech over truth but tech is influenced by truth. Those who read arguments that are naturally grounded in truthfulness naturally appeals to my human biases and would render your argument more persuasive, but technical debaters can ALWAYS beat truthful claims. Truth over tech is an excuse to insert human biases into debate that overrides and demeans good argumentation.

After watching the 2022 NDT Finals, I think the judge has an obligation to minimize as much intervention as possible, obviously our human nature necessitates certain preconceived notion’s influence upon our decisions but the sole method of my adjudication will be my analysis of the way both teams analyze, argue, and implicate their own arguments, I will not do this for you, simply analyze the way in which you do it yourself.

I think debate is a game not in the sense that there are rules we should follow and a structure around what we do, but in the sense that we play to win. That same game can absolutely be a site of beautiful and authentic good, through activism, revolution, argumentation, and more, but even so, no matter how you choose to play the game, winning in front of me means convincing me through a form of persuasion to give you the ballot.

Specifics

I will vote on ad-homs / call outs.
ivis need dtd warrants when introduced.
big overview K debaters are not as good as line by line ones, i prefer you do the latter.
i will keep note of cx.
things that are particularly harder for me to flow, this does not mean i am not open to these args or that i'm dogmatized against them but that you might want to slow down, "Phil AC/NCs that are 50 pointed with TJFs, Reasons to Prefer, and Pre-empts with enormous philosophical jargony tags that are hardly even delineated." that is all for now.
I will try to be as tab as possible thus, "I do not default in any way. if you have not sufficiently justified an argument, I just won't vote on it. this includes things like layering -- theory does not come before substance if you have not told me why it does." - Liam Nyberg, to clarify, this means I WILL vote on extinction outweighing your condo shell on magnitude if you do not layer.

A. More on this, I do not find myself voting on offense that isn't filtered through frameworks because I do not understand how to evaluate that offense in reference to the rest of the debate, this includes things like going for IVIs without weighing it's impacts and offensive tricks like GCB that are not filtered through truth testing (specifically different than presumption permissibility triggers that zero offense on other pages).

B. In debates involving lots of layering, I've found it increasingly hard to weigh between internal links to framework justifications like jurisdictive constraints, I've concluded that this is due to a lack of clash and judge instruction. Before giving your NR/AR, ask yourself, why does my weighing justification to [x impact] sequence their weighing justification to [y impact]? I find too many debaters relying on phrases like a K 2NR telling me to "overcorrect neg for ideological bias" without explaining why that should sequence a 2AR telling me to "hack aff due to time skew".

C. I also seem to be always voting on a risk of offense unless there's an explicit presumption trigger, in debates with low warranting threshold particularly tricks ones, I will not simply just strike off arguments if I don't understand them when both sides are doing a lack of explanation and thus concluding in a presumption ballot, I instead will find a risk of offense on either side given the little explanation I have.

SPEAKS: In general, I find myself most moved and assign the most speaks to people who signpost, are clear, do good evidence analysis, and display a sense of cohesion within their rhetoric and argumentation. I find myself most persuaded by people who are assertive, aggressive, and firm with their rhetoric but do not come off as rude, refer to McDonough JN, Wake Forest RT, Aden Barton and Zion Dixon. People who best exemplify these traits will get the most amount of speaks in front of me.

Specific things that will get you more speaks.

- Sitting down early if you have won, +! Conversely, sitting down early when you have lost, -!

- Referencing other debaters/teams as examples in some of your warrants. Contextualizing stuff to debate history is so cool.

- Being clear. The slower the clearer almost 90% of the time. The louder the clearer almost 90% of the time as well. University RH is a benchmark for how your spreading style should be to optimize speaks in front of me.

- Good argument strategy and tactics i.e going for the right choice in the 2NR, time allocation, and speech construction. You can win different routes but taking the easiest path to victory will garner more speaks.

- CX Dominance, not being lost or seeming evasive in cross, as well as putting your opponent into binds.

- Sending pre-written analytics will help your speaks and probably my flow.

I will not award you for the 30 speaks spike.

Lowpoint dubs only ever go to people who I found rhetorically less persuasive but won a dropped arg.

I'll start at 28 and go up and down from there.

I'll disclose speaks, I think it's a good norm.

I'll yell slow if you're too fast so don't be worried about outspreading me.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – minhle1933@gmail.com

Cody Morrow Colleyville Heritage High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 2:09 PM CDT

________________________________________________________________________

Paradigm from 2017 through February 2024.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.

30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD June 13, 2022

A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will not say clearer so that I don't influence or bother the other judge. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or look annoyed. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments will surely impact the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant. CONGRATULATIONS & GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

NILESH NIKUMBH Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Emray Pala Rock Hill HS 6 rounds

Conor Rice Hire 6 rounds

Tristan Rios Greenhill School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:12 PM EDT

Tristan Rios (they/them)

BTW looking for teams to coach, feel free to reach out via email

Email - Trisrios6955@gmail.com - plz put me on the email chain

for organizational reasons please make the subject of the email chain "Tournament - Round # - Aff team v Neg team" or something similar

who on hell is Tristan?

I am currently debating at UT Dallas (2022-Present), I have been debating for 6 years prior - 2 years at Lopez Middle school (2016-2018) , and 4 years at Ronald Reagan High school (2018-2022)

last year i was an assistant coach at Coppell as well as a coach for a few individual cx and ld teams

I have done it all, from occult horror storytelling to trans theory to baudrillard, to the all foreboding framework makes the gamework, the kids i coach also go for a very wide variety of arguments from exclusive k teams to policy fascists. Both me and the kids I coach have gotten bids and been to the toc. I state this not as a flex but more so to state that even though I may seem very k leaning (and I admit it is the literature i read the most in my freetime) but I have successfully coached and am aware of a wide variety of argumentative styles which means you will do best if you do you, dont try to adapt. if I think an argument is bad that doesn't mean i dont evaluate it, it just means i have a higher expectation for the other team to answer it well.

Non-negotiables

- misgendering

- trigger warnings

- anysort of interpersonal "-isms" that is done from debater to debater

General Thoughts/Preferences

generic links are fine as long as they are contextualized to the aff
I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
I default to viewing every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact IF not told otherwise. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

Speaks

if u send blocks during the debate +0.3 speaks

if u open source + 0.1 speaks

Note for LD:

i know alot of tech judges have a strange amount of distaste for evaluating traditional debate, but dont worry about that with me, i will happily judge the round regardless of your stylistic preferences

Daniel Shi Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:34 AM CDT

danielaudreycole@gmail.com

daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir

So who is this random guy?

POST JUDGING TWO CIRCUIT TOURNAMENTS THOUGHTS:

I don't know if I just did not care about it when I debated and judged regularly last year, or if there was some committee meeting where people decided just to toss evidence ethics completely out the window. It seems even worse than before. I saw a card that was tagged "Iran key for nuke war" then the card said in tiny unhighlighted font... "5 places where war could go nuclear." Authors, even at very credible websites write speculative pieces and opinion pieces that are being weaponized by debaters for cards with absolutely no regard to whether or not it is actually what the card says with context. Making something size 5 font does not make it go away if I catch anyone doing this... I will stop paying attention and drop you. No questions asked. I don't care if I'm the only one in the community that cares about this, if you can't be bothered to edit your case so it meets very high standards of evidence ethics, then PLEASE strike me.

Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)

I judge mostly these days for fun, and far less than I used to. I cover sports in my spare time for sports illustrated, Slow down from top speed.

Speaker Points: 30s for all, call me lazy but I've got enough crap to do as a judge, I'm not sorting through the minutia of what the difference is between a 30 and 29,6...

There are two major exceptions to this rule:

Unnecessary showmanship and/or general rudeness... Don't spread if you don't have to... Don't run 7 off if you don't have to... Don't cut your opponent off in cross every question... you know the usual stuff...
Evidence ethics... This is DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHER JUDGES... You should not highlight one sentence from the card and then make the rest of the text incredibly small to make the context of the card impossible to read. The general rule of thumb, is if the author of the article came in and listened to you read the card, would they feel comfortable with the way you have represented the card? If not, please recut..., I will drop your speaks to 27.5 without saying a word, your opponent does not even have to say anything (although if you stake the round on it, I am certainly willing to sign and deliver my ballot if you are correct). It won't change the rest of the debate, I won't even mention it in my RFD. Trust me, as someone who writes content that gets published online for a job, we do NOT write articles with debate in mind... cut them as such, do not cut a sentence out of an article, just because it is a fire link to your DA. (See longer rant above)

Pref Shortcuts(LD)-

LARP-1

(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2

Phil-3

K-4

Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)

This used to be a heck of a lot longer, I’m convinced that most of y’all didn’t read that disorganized mess. This is how you should think of me as a judge. A former policy debater that went strictly topic related T and Policy stuff and a few basic Ks. Slightly out of practice but judged 50+ circuit LD rounds last year.

Suleman Sule Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Neville Tom Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

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

Kien Bach Tran Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 10:22 AM CDT

Bach Tran (he/him)

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

This is based on my familiarity at evaluating things--will vote for anything that is explained well.

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

TL;DR: I vote for anything with a warrant and impact but most comfortable with larp + basic T/Theory/Ks. Regardless of content, if you are technical and know what you are talking about, I will enjoy judging you. I generally try to follow what you say to evaluate debates before inserting my biases so the more judge instruction/comparison you do the better off you will be. Things like what is/isn't new, when can things be new, what's the bar for answering/extending stuff, how should I read a piece of evidence, how should an argument be framed, etc. are all very helpful and increase your chances of winning/getting high points.

Tech>truth--my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but my threshold for beating obviously dumb arguments are pretty low. My bar for what counts as a warrant is not that high and things like "dumb argument" is not a warrant.

I'm generally not that picky with extensions so long as there are properly warranted (i.e, an overview of a conceded advantage is probably fine). Obviously, the details of explanantion should vary proportional to how conceded things are--overviews are probably not enough to replace LBL work on arguments that are contested.

Non-starters: -isms, ad homs, changing speech times, self harm good (wipeout/spark/the death K is fine), eval after [X speech], speaker points theory.

Please start the email chain early/preflow/whatever so the debate can begin as close to the start time as possible.

I flow on paper. I tend to not flow author names. Speed is fine but slow down/inflect on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. Signposting, numbering, and answering arguments in order are also helpful.

Other procedural things: tell me to write stuff down in CX, probably won't time, I always disclose the RFD (+speaker points, upon request). Feel free to preround/postround/email me questions/whatever.

Speaker points: I'm generous with them as long as you are technical, strategic, and generally a nice person. My current average is in the 28.8-29 range.

If you want to initiate an ethics challenge, it's a no take-back. Winner(s) gets W30(s) and loser(s) L0(s). Would prefer that you save this for things like clipping or malicious distortions and not small violations.

Rehighlights: yes insertions if indicting author/context/less than a sentence, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. Debate it out if you think I should/should not evaluate certain insertions.

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

Policy

I like people who know the topic lit and are good at weighing/evidence comparison. You can read whatever as long as you can do these two things. I can be persuaded about zero risk (especially if an impact is very poorly explained).

I like impact turns. Please do 0-off impact turns/case, I promise to give you high points if execution is decent.

I will read evidence if you tell me to (no "read card", yes "read card and check for [thing]"). Good debating can usually overcome good evidence (for the most part). Good analytics + debating can beat bad arguments/cards (for the most part).

Default no judgekick, everything else (condo, PICs/whatever CP, whatever fiat/perms, etc.) are fine unless the other side reads theory. Probably slow down on dense theory stuff (mostly if you are reading like a big textual perm block or something).

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

Ks on the Neg

Know the tl;dr version of mainstream Ks (cap, set col, security and whatnot) + very vague understanding of identity/pomo stuff. Please dump down the confusing philosophies and/or granular details between different theories/authors. Unpacking buzzwords and contemporary/historical examples help a lot. Please do LBL instead of giant overviews (they are bad).

Framework: Realistically, I think "middle-road" is the most reasonable interpretation but I understand the strategic value of excluding the plan or reps/epistimology/etc. So, to each their own--I'm more than happy to weigh the plan or reject rhetoric or critically examine power structures or whatever if you win on the flow that I should do so. Judge instruction for what count as uniqueness/solvency/offense is paramount. My default is probably along the lines of "yes Ks of whatever but they must implicate plan solvency."

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

Theory/T

Send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Default DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs.

I'll vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes theory but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. I'm probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds.

"[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

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

K Affs

Ideally, the 1AC should defend a change from the squo at least vaguely related to the topic (doesn't have to be policy/larping the USFG) but you can do whatever if you can defend your 1AC. Probably err on more explanation of the aff/method than less.

Debate is probably a game. Anything can(not) be an impact depending on impact calc. Again, no strong opinions--but all else equal I am probably better for affs that defend a CI + impact turns vs only impact turns. That said, I also find impact turns contextualized to neg framework (i.e. "their specific explanation of fairness/limits/etc." is bad) more persuasive than categorical rejection of debate/fairness.

I think KvK rounds are really interesting but you probably want to slow down and explain interactions between the K and the aff + how the perm works (or doesn't work) because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

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

Phil: Bad for "phil" that is tricks in disguise. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

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

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this but if you want to go for skep or something feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

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

Trad: Sure. I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue" (no it's not), "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE" (no it's certainly not) and such.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I'm also down for theory/the K/whatever if you want to (you still need to explain the arguments though...don't just read LD/CX backfiles and call it a day).

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

--If you don't send evidence/speech docs before speeches I am capping your speaker points at a 28. I don't super care how you share evidence, but if you don't and the round drags on forever, I will be very grumpy. Also if you do paraphrase I want cut cards at the bottom (at that point, why not just read the cut cards...but what do I know...).

--I think generally disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but will still vote on the flow if you win your stuff. If debated evenly, I probably will never vote on paraphrasing good...

--I don't know how PFers get away with reading one-line, unwarranted "cards" with random prepositions as taglines that get spun out of proportions in the backhalf. Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) matters a lot, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should also challenge silly/unwarranted extrapolations of terrible evidence more. If the other team says a blog post is somehow a "meta-study," you should point that out and I will most likely concur. Or alternatively just read better cards and explain evidence in a consistent manner.

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse but I'm open to ignoring this if you can theoretically justify not doing so. In general, I think answering case in 2nd constructive is an interesting strategy. A full-on, well-executed impact turn dump in 2nd constructive will probably earn you very high points.

I like a lot of warranted, comparative weighing. Please do more link/internal link weighing--I do not care if your impact outweigh if you concede a bunch of link defense. The more warrants/examples you add to this step the easier it would be for both of us. Judge instruction is crucial in the backhalf and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others and don't weaponize others' suffering for competitive benefit.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.

Login to Tabroom

Bridgeland CySprings Holiday Spectacular

2023 — NSDA Campus, TX/US

DEBATE Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges