Tabroom.com

TFA State 2024

2024 — Houston, TX/US

World Schools Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nicholas Aranda Greenhill School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 1:08 AM MDT

BIO:

Education:

BA in Philosophy, Peace Studies, & Communication Studies from Regis University

MA Communication Studies -K-State University

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

-Debate Coach @ Colorado Academy ('23 - present)

-College Debate Coach @ K-State for BP debate ('21-'23)

-Assistant Coach for WSD @ The Greenhill School ('20-'23)

- Instructor, VBI-San Diego '24

- Instructor, Harvard University - Harvard Debate Workshop '24

-Curriculum Coordinator & Top Lab Leader at Global Debate Symposium for WSD ('19-present)

-Instructor at Baylor Debate Institute for LD ('22)

-Instructor at Stanford National Forensics Institute (PF & Parli) ('19-'21)

PARADIGM
First and foremost I believe debate is about engagement and education. I highly value the role of charity in argumentation and the function of intellectual humility in debate.

NOTEs FOR ONLINE DEBATING:

1) You'll likely need to go slower

2) Be gracious to everyone, don't freak out if someone's Wi-Fi drops

3) I've reverted to flowing on paper--so signpost signpost signpost *See my sections on Cross-X & Speed*

You’ll see two distinct paradigms for WSD & LD/Policy in that order:

World Schools

I love World Schools Debate! This has by far become my favorite format of debate!

Do not run from the heart of the motion--instead, engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate (not just in the 1!). Ensure that you have a logical structure for the progression and development of the bench, work on developing and staying true to your team line. Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through your given principle or framework system. You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story: make the implicit, explicit. World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each judging area seriously.

Some thoughts on WSD

1. Prop Teams really need to prioritize establishing a clear comparative and beginning the weighing conversation in the Prop 3 to overcome the time-skew in the Opp Block. This involves spelling out clearly in the prop three not only what the major clashes in the round are but also what sort of voters I should prefer and why.

2. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

3. Opposition teams should use the block strategically. This means that the material covered in the opp reply should not be a redundant repetition of the opp 3. One of these two speeches should be more demonstrative (the 3) and the other less defensive (the 4) — we can view them as cohesive but distinct because they prioritize different issues and methods. There is a ton of room to play around here, but bottom line is that I should not hear two back to back identical speeches.

4. Big fan of principled arguments, but lately I have found that teams are not doing a fantastic job weighing these arguments against practical arguments. The framework of the case and the argument should preemptively explain to me what I should prefer this *type* of argument over or against a practical argument (an independent reason to prefer you). This usually involves rhetorically and strategically outlining the importance of this principle because of its moral/value primacy (i.e., what is the principled impact to disregarding this argument). This said, winning your principle should not depend on you winning a prior practical argument.

5. Regrets motions are some of my favorite motions, but I find that teams really struggle with these. You are debating here with the power and retrospect and hindsight. To this end, watch out for arguments that say something is bad because it “will cause X;” rather, arguments should say this thing is bad because it “already caused X.” This does not mean that we cannot access conversations about the future in regrets motions—but we need to focus the majority of our framing on actually analyzing why an *already present/happened* event or phenomena is worthy of regret.

__________________________

LD & Policy Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well. Though I dislike tricks & am not a great judge to pref for theory debates. Some of these sections are more applicable to either LD or Policy but that should be intuitive.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. I don't disclose speaks. This seems arbitrary. I'm not confident why the practice of disclosing speaks has become a common request--but I think this is largely silly.

Speed: I am fine with speed; though I am not fine with bad clarity. More the half of the spreading debaters I listen to seriously neglect diction drills and clarity. Rapidly slurring cards together and ignoring clear sign-posting does not allow as much time as you think for the pen to put ink on the flow. I cannot tell you how many debates I have judged in the last two years where the entirety of CX time is spent by the opponent's trying to figure out what the other debater just said. I will only yell "clear" twice if you are going too fast for me--clarity has only become more important in the world of online debating. Recently, if I reach the point where I have to either say clear (or type it in the zoom chat) debaters get visibly frustrated. You have to choose between a judge who is capable of flowing your material or your desire to go so fast even when incomprehensible. In non-Zoom debates, typically nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *Note my Section on Online Debating*

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. Morality is not a value. It's just not. It is descriptive; debate requires normative frameworks.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. I will default to comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Some level of intervention is required on the part of the judge unless the framework debate is carried all the way to the 2AR--don't make me intervene. Make sure you return to the framework debate! (Especially important for me in LD)

Theory: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory, tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interp clear and the violation clear. I want to be clear here though: I do not enjoy theory debates, I think the proliferating practice of theory debates and competing underviews is net-bad for the activity. Additionally, if theory is a consistent leg of your strategy as a debater, that is fine, just do not pref me. I will not be a good judge for your preferred strategy. I'll also concede here that I am really poor at analyzing tricks debates and I am not a fan of the practice of lists of theory spikes--debate should be, at its core, about engagement not tricks for evasion. This is not to say that I have no understanding of how to adjudicate competing interps or theory debates, but it is not my comfort zone and I dislike the practice.

Cross-X: I flow cross-ex. I do consider it a substantive portion of the debate and cross-ex is binding. I believe that too many debaters waste their cross-ex time by desperately trying to get some understanding of their opponent's case because of the increasing absurdity of some case strategies and/or the lack of clarity that accompanies some speed. There are fundamentally three types of overarching cross-x questions: 1) Clarification, 2) Rebuttal, 3) Set-up/Concession; they rank in weakness/effectiveness from 1-3, with 1 being a non-strategic use of time.

Plans/CPs IN LD: This is fine. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are fine. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. Again: If your strategy is to run a theory argument against a CP, a Plan, a PIC, or the like I may not necessarily be super happy about this *See my section on theory*. Debate is about engagement, not evasion--but I will listen to anything to the best of my ability.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. I love to see something Unique but relevant if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! You gotta give me some function beyond “give me the ballot.” I am comfortable with most critical theory and post-modern scholarship. In particular, I have well-established academic training in phenomenology-informed critical theory, metaphysical frameworks that take strong ontological positions, and Deleuzian scholarship writ large. I can draw the links for you; Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. I have experience working with critical theory and have worked alongside Dr. George Yancy firsthand on Critical Race Theory--I cannot stress this enough: good K debaters do their authors and their authors' scholarship justice by understanding the primary texts and scholarship inside and outside of the round. If your only exposure to a K author is a list of cards, you are philosophically unequipped to meaningfully engage in that author's scholarship, and unprepared for a good K debate.

This in no way means that you have to be a PhD student on Baudrillard to run a Baudrillard K, it just means you have to actually do your homework and trust your reasonable knowledge of the case-dependent scholarship because you didn't take shortcuts in understanding the K-Author, and your main textual engagement with the K-Author goes well beyond a series of cards, especially cards someone else cut.

Evidence: Be ethical with your evidence. This is serious stuff.

Weighing and Impacts: Spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, if you argue with me or begin to debate with me, I will give you a 20 on speaks--no joke Do not waste my time.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

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

Jeremy Ball Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:27 AM CDT

Thanks for checking in with my paradigm!

WSD

I've done WSD quite a bit in the past, and just have a few pointers and things that I like to see in rounds.

TLDR: Figured I'd put this here as I have a bit of a long paradigm. I'd love if you read all of it as I think it's generally good to know or think about, but here's the short version:

Don't POI too much/too little. Be smart with them.

Weigh - tell me why you win, compare worlds, and give me 'even if' statements (don't just asssume you win your points).

A motion being in your favor doesn't mean you will always win the round. If the other team executes better strategy, offense, and overall performs better I do not have a problem with giving them the win if they earn it.

Don't be abusive with framing.

POIs

This is a somewhat big thing for me as POIs are a pretty important part of WSD debate. They're a great strategic tool and can really disrupt your opponent's arguments mid-speech/sidetrack them. My main thing about POIs is moderation.

I love to see teams that POI with really thoughtful questions a few times a speech. The two things I don't like to see in a round are:

If you're using POIs every 20 seconds or even barracking, and then don't have any good or strategic content for your POI. I used to call that "POIs to be annoying."

Or if you're never using POIs and just trying to use all your strategic material in your speech to A) give the other team less response time or B) try to make your own speech stronger. If you go back to an argument you made in a POI in a speech, I'm totally fine with that. Just don't be silent the entire time the other side is up there and then try to cram everything into your speech or make it impossible for them to rebuttal your arguments due to when you're presenting counterarguments etc.

Weighing

Weighing is a huge part of debate! Something that is very mature and helpful for judges in a round is weighing. The more you can weigh your arguments not only in your 4th speech but throughout the round, the further you'll get ahead in my book. Telling me why something is a better solution or what you propose is one thing. Telling me why I should vote for you and especially why your world is preferable over the other team's makes my job at the end of the round that much easier.

Creative Arguments/My Personal Weighing

Not every motion is perfect. One of my first WSD rounds was "this house prefers in person school to online." I mean, just looking at that you can see how it's really sort of weighed to one side. Not a single team at a tournament who debated as the opposition won that motion.

I know that sometimes you pull a side you don't want. Sometimes you're given the short end of the stick with examples, arguments (especially arguments that don't make it sound like you're some sort of -ist), and the amount of work or effort you have to put into preparing a case.

The great thing is I understand this and if you can have a beautiful debate round with good argumentation, presentation, and strategic decisions, I'm not going to count you off the ballot just because in the real world the proposition or opposition is always preferable because the motion was poorly chosen.

In the end, I decide a winner based off of which team has more points. If everything you do earns more points, I don't overly care if the other team's world is more preferable. Especially because in order to earn that point advantage, you're going to have to make good arguments and counter arguments and debate really well. So, it's not like I'm going to be voting for a horrible world against an amazing one, you do still have to show me why your world would be a good one.

Fair Debating

Last little bit here.

I take analysis on the bounds of a motion and what the teams "have to debate" very seriously. In essence:

If you're a proposition team and define the motion as one way and say that the opposition has to debate these things and can't use A, B and C in their arguments, you're going to have to really prove to me that they can't. Use some definitions, common sense, etc. But abusive framing isn't high on my list of reasons to vote for you, so preferably you write a case where you prove why your world is better on a point rather than just framing the round so that neither world can use those things.

If both teams agree with framing, then I'll totally work with that. If prop and opp disagree, I'll generally lean towards the opposition framing as it's typically fairer. That being said, prove to me why the bounds of the round should be what they are, and then debate! You will not win a round by saying the other team can't argue something and then only argue points that are exclusive to your side. There's no strategy in that, no clash, no debate really. If you ignore the other team's points, that's your decision, but they might just be marked as unconflicted winning points on my ballot without good analysis in your framing as to why those points don't fall under the motion.

Also, sometimes in a debate round we get caught up debating things that don’t really matter to the motion. If you’re debating about climate change and then start arguing about the morality of capitalism, you’re not really explaining to me why your side is a better world. You’re just saying you hate Jeff Bezos. So…try to stay close to the heart of the motion. You can win a lot of rounds just weighing on what is truly most pertinent to the motion.

Finally, don't insult the opponents or their side of the world. There's no point in claiming that the other team is blatantly racist, or hates poor people, or anything like that. Tell me why their world is disproportionately unfair to certain groups and why that makes your word preferable. You don't need to frame any argument made against your world as an -ist. You just need to prove why your side is more beneficial in helping those groups. That's defensive and more mature.

My main pointers for LD are simple. Use your time wisely.

The more you can effectively clash with your opponent’s material and prove their points invalid, while defending yours.

Having solid constructives will help a lot, but I tend to weigh ballots more on the side of the competitor that debated better and clashed better in the round than the competitor that just showed up with well researched or written constructives. I appreciate unique arguments,

I take fairly quick notes in a round, but not spreading will help me note down everything you say. I prefer if you give slower, more traditional speeches that have good material, writing, and presentation, but I understand the need to get out everything you’ve come prepared with. So, speaking very quickly is fine with me if it's strategic and is helping you gain a lot of ground in a round, but if you're just speaking quickly for the sake of trying to get more out and a lot of what you're saying is circular or repetitive, I'd prefer for you to slow down and make effective points. Spread strategically.

Brett Banks Hire 6 rounds

Diana Barney Alief Elsik High School 3 rounds

Jane Boyd Grapevine High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 11:25 AM CDT

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

Email: janegboyd79@gmail.com (for case/evidence sharing)

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

Order of Paradigms LD, PFD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)

I am NSDA-certified in all debate and speech events.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

A good debate is a good debate. Remember that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for a good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation, I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theories used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens are the same thing - these are mechanisms for determining who wins the debate. If a value is used, it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply as an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and unacceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want a substantive debate on the topic, not an excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate, resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round, then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case; however, I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I wouldn't say I like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy, but I expect you to explain and understand the philosophies you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD, by nature, is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a tough job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then explain the importance or relevance of that argument. Don't just give me the "it was dropped, so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is a crucial argument; you must tell me why it is crucial in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Slow down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear, I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritik:

I have been around long enough to see Kritik's arguments' genesis. I have seen them go from bad to worse and then good in the policy. I think K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and, specifically, the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of generic Kritik, which questions whether we exist and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LDs ask me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That said, I will listen to the arguments, but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a straightforward abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is essential. Also, please know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. Learning what non-unique really means is essential. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote, though, unless you have a compelling reason.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't like fast PFD. The time constraints don't allow it. There are no plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run, but more traditionally, without calling them disadvantages.

Basic debate principles - claim, warrant, and IMPACT must be clearly explained. Direct clash and clear signposting are essential. WEIGH or compare impacts. Tell me your "story" and why I should vote for your side of the resolution.

I have experience with every type of debate, so words like link cross-apply and drop are okay.

The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview

I flow - IF you share cases, put me on the email chain, but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing, not reading.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

I have experience and success coaching American-style Debates. World Schools Debate quickly became my favorite. Every year that I coached WSD, I coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournaments. I judge WSD regularly and often.

The main thing to know is that I follow the norms of WSD (to which you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is a classic debate—the type that folks think about when they think about debates. It is much more based on logic and classic arguments, with some evidence but not much evidence. It is NOT an American-style debate.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?

I flow each speech.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I look at both. Does the principle have merit, and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think the practical idea has to be solved, but is it a good idea?

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.

Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.

Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.

The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.

Kyla Noel Brookshier-DeLeon Wimberley High School 3 rounds

Andrew Burgos Elkins High School 6 rounds

Jon-Carlo Canezo St John's School 6 rounds

Tanisha Chaudhuri Coppell High School 5 rounds

Valaniecia Coleman Blanson CTE High School 3 rounds None

Brian Daniel Grand Oaks High School 6 rounds

Sarthak Das Hire 6 rounds

Elyse Dewbre Northland Christian School 4 rounds

Ian Etheridge Jersey Village High School 6 rounds

Alexander Farahbod The Kinkaid School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 4:05 PM EDT

Kinkaid ‘23 Georgetown ‘27

Hi, I am Alexander Farahbod, I debated for The Kinkaid School in Houston for 3 years competing primarily in WSD, and am currently a disruptor in the tech industry. I specialize in allowing AI to dominate the agricultural sector. I'm currently researching the role that the nutcracker played in the formation of the Tibetan plateau through the collision of two tectonic plates: the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate.

General Paradigm

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

1. Absolutely NO use of technology in the debate room.

This applies to your 4th and 5th debaters too. Everyone should be engaged in the round and paying attention, no exceptions unless you want an autoloss. Obviously not a requirement for online debate.

2. Weigh

I think this is really important in rounds but really hard to implore successfully. My role model explained it to me like this:

I begged you,

But

You didn’t,

And you

Lost

—A. R. S.

3. I ♥️ Style

4. DO NOT turn off your timer with your middle or pinky fingers. It's bad taste. Use the other three.

5. Stick to the basics

Oftentimes, people get lost in the weeds of debate land and forget the basic style of argumentation.

6. BE COMPARATIVE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE...please?

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world. Explaining this clearly is such an essential part of good debates; this needs to be a priority in all speeches.

7. Speed

This is not a formula one race; you are not Max Verstappen; please slow down (pretend you're Alpine this season).

8. Clash

I'm a level 15 king tower in clash royale with the max (9000) trophies every season. I consistently reach legendary arena (arena 23) in the ladder and ultimate champion (league 10) in the path of legends. I'm in a clan with my aunt, my friend, and my fourth cousin twice removed's neighbor's pet turtle (who only plays with the firecracker and has a super annoying deck). We are currently ranked number 5 in Madagascar. Now onto the debate clash. Do it. It's never fun to watch a debate over the framework where whatever interpretation I buy automatically wins the round. Attempt to resolve framework disputes early to get to the content/heart of the debate as quickly as possible.

I consider adding speaks if you tell me something non debate that’s on my paradigm…

9. General Argumentation

I highly value different types of principles or arguments that aren't necessarily “common” but instead are creative enough that they make the round different and interesting. Please be creative—pretend this is your final project of your art major—you need creativity.

10. Have Fun

As a debater, I used to have a visceral reaction when I read “have fun!” in paradigms because hey, debate is only fun if you win.

WSD Specific

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

Content

Worlds is supposed to be a conversational activity, and in conversation, people will not be flowing your arguments. Please do your best to re-emphasize your arguments in new ways as you extend your case in later rounds to make sure they've made it on my flow.

I will vote on the least mitigated claim warrant data and impact that is extended down the bench.

One thing I have noticed in worlds is that debaters tend to agree with impacts like climate change being necessary and just completely concede the impact level so they can fight over the link level. With that being said, fighting over the impact level is something you should be doing frequently and something I will reward as a judge.

I value organized speeches!!! Messy speeches = sad Farahbod = under 68 speaks. Ways to make sure your speech is organized: first enumerate your responses; second signpost your arguments; and third condense into clash points.

I would MUCH rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. Please have offense. I want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

Principle debates: If it becomes a practical v. principle debate, I'm expecting A LOT of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. I'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). For instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!—that Georgetown education pulling through). I love creative principles and creative impacts here.

Model debates: Both models and countermodels need to be characterized from the start. Teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with key stakeholders. Prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where I usually see prop fail). Opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model AND why it is preferable.

If the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish first what in the wording of the motion grants you a model and second why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). Regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, I will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.

Strategy

In my opinion, strategy breaks down into two things, First is team cohesion which is having a common theme and narrative throughout all 4 speeches. Being on the same page in terms of how you explain/extend arguments is also extremely underrated in WSD and makes your team appear significantly stronger. Second is smart collapses into the 3s and replies. Making sure you're identifying your strongest path to the ballot and capitalizing on it is also an essential part of team strategy.

Style

Style may be only 20 percent of the ballot officially, but in my heart, it's more than that. It is not merely a superficial aspect or a secondary consideration; it plays a significant role in shaping the overall experience and impact of a debate round. The joy that courses through my cerebral cortex from the influx of dopamine when I hear a funny one-liner or flowery rhetoric is unparalleled. I live for this hit of dopamine. Being so for real right now, content is given a little slide as long as you gaslight me enough. The dynamic interplay of content and style is what makes debating a truly engaging and memorable experience.

Simply put, if you sound good, you've already secured my admiration and, quite possibly, a favorable judgment. In the intricate dance between style and content, it's the former that often takes center stage, guiding the rhythm and leaving a lasting imprint on the cadence of the debate round.

The capacity to articulate ideas with flair and eloquence is a valuable asset in various facets of life, from professional settings to everyday conversations. Debaters who recognize and hone the significance of style are not only refining their abilities within the context of debate but also preparing themselves for success in diverse real-world scenarios.

Sarah miranda Fournier Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 9:23 AM CDT

Hi!
It’s a pleasure to be judging your round today.

As a brief introduction, I did debate for roughly 3 1/2 years during high school; Some public forum, UIL, Congress, but mainly World Schools is where I centered myself in. I’d label myself as a strategist and “game-player” judge, who appreciates the debaters who catch the small things their opponents can’t, twist the framing in favor for their win, and keep their arguments clear and concise (while also throwing in some fun one-liners and quippy remarks).

What do you need to do to win?

1. First, follow the rules of the debate and respect your opponents; obviously. Don’t bombard a speaker with POIs to the point they cannot provide adequate argumentation (this can get annoying and is far too aggressive- plus it kills the vibe honestly). Don’t ask another question/provide a statement right after your POI has been answered or acknowledged by the opponent UNLESS you have been accepted for a follow up. If your POI hasn’t been answered or even acknowledged for more than 20 seconds, please sit down (I will for sure notice this and consider it during the ballot and for my decision). You’re only wasting time you could use for flowing at that point. Lastly, just respect your opponents protected time.

2. Next, structure. If you haven’t practiced your speech as first speaker, or done mock rounds, it’s clear as day in your timing. I want definitions, burdens, first and second substantive, and a foundation for framing in first speeches (1st opp: you can decide if you want to do rebuttals first or case, that’s a strategic decision that can either give you a strong head start or kill you depending on how well your first speaker is. So be smart about it, especially if your case is lengthy). Second speeches MUST start with rebuttal first, flowing your previous two substantives to ensure they are not dropped, (even if they aren’t the BEST, it’s better to have some material than to be left with nothing by the end of the round because you dropped all your subs..) and then finally introducing your third substantive. Third speech should not include any new arguments; they will not be flowed by me. You should be painting a picture to me of your world, comparing how both sides would look, and of course THREE BIG QUESTIONS. Please! These are big in my decision making. And finally, fourth speech should flow those three subs once again, connecting them to the framing of the debate, proving you have met the burden (or how opponents have failed to meet) and finalize with your voters (as many as you feel there are).

3. Argumentation.
- Fallacies are stupid and dumb please don’t try these during a debate. Same with over-exaggerations, hyperboles, etc etc. If you know an opponents information is false too, please, speak up because catching someone in a lie or proving they don’t really know what they are talking about is truly satisfying.

- Like I said with structure, three big questions and voters are important. If your subs have been dropped, don’t stop including them in your speeches in ways that tie to your opponents big questions; then you kill two birds with one stone.

- Impacts. Not only will these help outweigh your opponents big questions, basically rendering them useless, they add personality and urgency to your case/side. A team that doesn’t recognize the importance of impact is a sad one.

4. Put simply, you can win if you just: Stay on topic and keep your debate clean, don’t drop your substantives, rebuttal the RIGHT things, tie your three big questions to the burdens to show you have met them/opposing team has not, and emphasize your case’s impact(s)- “We win because we protect ___ which improves __, which has far more magnitude than opp/prop’s ___”

and that’s all!

-Sarah M Fournier (she/they)

Ashley Freeman Alief Early College High School 2 rounds None

CHANDRASEKHAR GANNAVARAPU Jordan High School 1 rounds

Evan Gilbert Hire 6 rounds

Deepa Gopu Tompkins High School 3 rounds

Daniel Hearne Hire 6 rounds

Davy Holmes Dripping Springs High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 5:19 AM CDT

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

Suchit Ineni Coppell High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 4:26 PM CDT

Hi guys, I'm Suchit. I've debated at Coppell ('23) for 4 years, primarily in world schools, but I have some minimal experience in LD. Half the reason I'm involved in debate is that I have fun doing so, so let's keep it that way and avoid being problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

If I'm judging you in PF/LD, I'm not the most experienced with the format, so slow down a bit for me. You don't have to go conversational, but I'm not used to people spreading. I'd probably be best described as a flay judge. I'm willing to vote on anything, but it's your responsibility to prove why I should vote on it/why I should care. If you're running a k, you're going to have to explain it well to make me feel comfortable voting on it.

WSD:

The biggest thing I have is to be fair when you're debating. If your strategy is to straw man your opponents or use abusive models/definitions, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I like to see well-warranted arguments with impacts that are weighed in the context of the round. I'll try not to intervene whatsoever, but typically, the worse an argument is (in terms of warrants, how true it is, if there are any contradictions, etc.), the lower the burden on the other team there is to refute it. That isn't to say that I won't vote for an argument that I don't like/believe; if an argument is untouched down the bench, I'm left to assume that it's true.

I love principled arguments and have found myself voting on them a lot recently, but that's typically because the practical is too messy or isn't explained well enough. I have no qualms with valuing a principle over a practical, but you generally need to do a lot of work explaining why I should vote on it.

Speaking of which, weighing is a huge thing for me. I'll vote for anything (unproblematic of course), but only if you tell me why I should. This isn't just within a clash, but on an overarching level (meta-weighing). Tell me why some arguments matter more than others. Tell me why some impacts are more important than others. If I don't get any of this, I'm left to intervene and choose what I believe is most important, and you definitely don't want that.

If you have any questions about a round or want further feedback, feel free to reach out to me at suchitineni@gmail.com

Emily Joseph Hire 6 rounds

Jana Joyner Grand Oaks High School 6 rounds

Andy Lam Alief Early College High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 7:39 AM EDT

Hello, my name is Andy! I just recently graduated from UT Austin with a BS in Political Communications and Government. I will be pursuing my JD very soon and which law school is TBD. >_<

I typically judge World's School Debate and my history can be seen below. I competed on the Alief Elsik Speech & Debate Team all four years having done WSD and Extemp for most of it. I also have competed in PF and Congress. I have competed at local, state, national, and international tournaments: made it to semi-finals at TFA State tournament and double-octos at Nationals in 2020 for WSD. So, I am pretty familiar with the norms and have a good amount of experience in World's!

General notes about how I evaluate a WSD round:

Just like every form of debate, they have their own unique styles and prefer if competitors stick to the norms of WSD. (e.g. 1st - presenting the case and providing the framework from which the debate round should be viewed from, 2nd - extending/adding a new substantive, 3rd - crystalizing the main key clashes of the round). 3rd speech is really important for me so make sure you really address the key issues in the round and how your world better satisfies whatever practical gain/loss or principle. Why should I prioritize your benefits/harms over the other team's even when taking them at their highest ground? Do not automatically assume I will know everything regarding the motion so please provide the necessary characterizations for me to understand what you're advocating for in the 1st speech.

Spreading, using other debate jargon, or making small technical arguments that are not relevant to your case do not appeal to me. Unless you think the small detail in the other team's case is important or could be a determining factor in me buying their arguments, please focus more on the main ideas. WSD is about the bigger picture debate and providing a comparative on why your world is better and should be prioritized over the opposing team's world.
Don't have a preference for practical v. principle arguments. What it comes down to is the warranting you provide and how you weigh your impacts against the other team going toward the end of the round. Really just depends on the motion and what it is asking you to debate so please pay close attention to the motion. "This House would, regrets, believes, or supports" all have different implications.
I know that the nature and style of debate of WSD make it more plausible for teams to rely less heavily on empirical information in contrast to other forms of debates, especially during impromptu rounds, but please don't abuse this and I will ignore any arguments that are being supplemented with any questionable examples or abusive interpretations that aren't being explained why I should intepret it the way you are telling me too.

Please be organized with your speech. I value content over style but don’t lose me in a dense fog of information. If I can’t flow your speech or you see me stop, then it is a sign you are possibly losing me. Whether you think it is obvious or not through the links you make, don’t assume I will connect the dots so please provide a very clear linkage! But of course, it helps with the speaker's points if you have strong speaking skills and does keep me more engaged as a judge. :)
POIs are a unique aspect of WSD so please do engage with them whenever they’re presented and not do things such as waiting till the 6-minute mark to take them on your own terms. On the inverse, please don’t bombard the opposing team with POIs or be overly obnoxious when trying to get the other team’s attention.
If your side of the house is reliant on just one example as to why it is practically realistic or true, I will most likely not give you the ballot unless you are able to effectively demonstrate how it's something that is applicable to all of your stakeholders.

(My two cents on models/countermodels: I typically find that a lot of motions can do w/o one. I find that the debate on the effectiveness/feasibility of one often distracts from what the motion is asking you to debate.)

General notes on how I evaluate other debate rounds (LD and PF):

Spreading doesn't bother me even though I am against it in WSD. I can typically keep up but I will say something if I can’t. No shade but some of y’all “spread” and I genuinely cannot understand most of what you’re saying because most of the words begin to get slurred. That’s fine if you want to squeeze in a lot of info but it is also important that I can intake and flow it! Signposting and slowing down on taglines will help a lot.
For LD, I was a traditional debater when I did it for a bit so the main focus was resolution/value/criterion for me but I am cool with progressive debates or a combination of both. (But honestly…what is K?) So that’s a heads-up that you run the risk of me just being completely clueless if you get too dense with the verbiage. Sure, I am down to hear out things such as a possible plan or counter-plan but please remember it is not a CX round and get too crazy with it.
For PF, I think my comments such as weighing and providing clear linkage on how I weigh WSD rounds apply here. I think teams are often good at explaining the impacts and how their contentions lead to this and that, but I struggle to comprehend that linkage/warranting as to why what you claim will happen on your side will actually happen if we affirm/negate the resolve. But some additional stuff…not a fan of definition debates. Think it is a big waste of time. Please make sure to actually clash and respond to the other team’s arguments, rebuttals, or even questions. The lack of engagement with the opposing team’s arguments or rebuttals just makes for a very repetitive round. I try my best to flow everything but I may miss things here and there. So, having very clear voters (such as how you may win on aspects such as scope, magnitude, and etc.) at the end as to why I should give you the ballot makes my job easier when writing the ballot. If your opponent drops an argument, I may or may not catch it so feel free to make it known.
If a card is left uncontested or unrefuted, I will take it as a truth. So if you suspect there is a mischaracterization or abusive interpretation, please make sure to make it apparent in your speech.

Timing: Please, please be mindful of your time. If you're in the middle of finishing a sentence and it's time, then feel free to finish but don't try to squeeze in a few extra sentences. I won't penalize you if it happens once, but I will dock speaker points if it is a frequent occurrence. If you want to examine another team's case for whatever reason, it will count as prep time. Don't mean to be uptight but it's more about being respectful of your opponent's time, my own, and even the tournament itself.

Most judges say this but I do not usually make the decision until the last speech is made, even if I feel as if there seems to be an "obvious winner". Thus, I highly recommend using every second you have! Have a good round and please be respectful! Making personal attacks are unnecessary and defeats the educational value that you are supposed to take away from engaging in these events.

Extemp:

I usually rank based on content but presentation does matter and can be the difference between getting a higher or lower rank if speeches are on par in terms of content so please don’t overlook this aspect.
Small little things like a good introduction and strong speaking skills do help but I think something that is really important is to stay organized and structured in the speech and in the individual points. Too often competitors are very good at providing the road maps of the whole speech but begin to just ramble in the individual points.
My main focus when I am judging FX/DX is the analysis you provide. How well are your arguments built and how effective are you at integrating sources for purposes such as warranting and taglines. At a minimum, I prefer at least four sources.
I think another thing to avoid is having points that are identical. If you are struggling to find a third point, I would much rather you make two main points with multiple layers of analysis under each instead of three underdeveloped points.
If you pause or forget something, trust me…I will not hold it against you. Been there, done that. Don’t panic and let it consume you.

Audra Langston Grand Oaks High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:05 AM CDT

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

Vanessa Lee JBS Law Magnet High School 3 rounds

Sherry Long Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:35 AM CDT

Hi! I'm Sherry and I'm currently a freshman at UT Austin double-majoring in International Relations & Applied Mathematics. I debated quite extensively in high school (WSD) for The Hockaday School and Team Texas. I served as team captain in both capacities.

Some of my experience includes reaching finals at the 2023 TFA tournament(semifinals the year before), reaching quarterfinals at Harvard out of 120+ teams, and reaching late outrounds at 20+ TFA circuit tournaments. I was also ranked #2 in the nation in WSD (highest-ranked female World Schools debater in the country). I am well-versed in the format and have competed in every speaker position and basically every category of motions.

My take on WSD:

your analysis needs to be rigorous, specific, and follow the claim-evidence-analysis structure with apt support (this includes logic, not just empirics). I will not want to weigh your claim heavily if you just haphazardly string together buzzwords and random pieces of information.
Characterizations will inevitably define the debate. Do not fall into the trap of minimizing the round by making your descriptions too dichotomous, as the most realistic analysis is going to exist in the middle ground.
Signposting is so important and often creates the organizational structure of a round. Give things unique names and reference them when breaking down the debate, and my ballot will be a lot cleaner.
I really like principle arguments (and would weigh them above the practical if executed successfully), but they are so rarely done well. You need to ask yourself why this argument is morally urgent and exists irrespective of the worst-case practical outcome. In high school, this video really helped me: https://www.youtube.com/live/lIgxr1GzXDU?si=UcFLcCZyrQwvHl67
World Schools is about the comparative. It is not enough to attack your opponent's case without simultaneously illustrating why your world either directly solves these harms or at least better serves your stakeholders. You need to think about/discuss the comparative under almost every clash and argument you make.
I will vote off of clashes, not individual arguments. This means I don't necessarily flow every piece of information you give me, but will remember the most prevalent and emphasized arguments.
Weighing needs to happen on two levels 1) weigh on things like vulnerability, scope, level of impact, and prerequisite and 2) the best rounds have a degree of meta-analysis, so clearly illustrate how each clash functions in the round, its overall significance to my ballot, and why it precedes other clashes.
make the debate interesting!! Debate is a performance just as it’s a competition. Charisma, narratives, and humor will get you points.

feel free to email me for more specific information at sherrylongg@gmail.com always happy to share :)

Shreya Marimuthu Hire 6 rounds

Dawson Marold Coppell High School 6 rounds

Greg Mayo Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 4:48 PM EDT

I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD at NSDA Nationals.
In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery. In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon. Contentions/substantives must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to link back to the main argument / claim. I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present. Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic. I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible. I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important. Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.

Any other questions may be asked in the room.

In L-D:

I am a traditional judge. Value & Criteria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.

L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.

I am an opponent of speed.

In Congressional Debate:

As a traditional judge, I am a huge proponent of effective persuasive speaking; no speed. I look for the fundamentals of speech structure. A speech must include, but not be limited too: An attention getter, signposting of main points, a logical and organized sequence, a summary and effective closing. Within the content of a speech, clash on previous speeches is necessary, while extending arguments. Participation in the chamber is essential. I frown on unprofessional behavior in the chamber during cross. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other.

Eric Mears Flower Mound High School 6 rounds

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

Hi, all!

I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.

Debate Events

I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.

LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.

I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.

WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.

Jenn Melin Northland Christian School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:24 AM CDT

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.

I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Sahith Mocharla Coppell High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat July 13, 2024 at 5:10 PM CDT

BIO:

Education:

Pursuing a B.B.A in Management and a B.A in International Relations & Global Studies at UT Austin
Pursuing a minor in Sociology and a Certificate in Core Texts & Ideas

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

Space City Camp Instructor (Summer '23)
Middle School Debate Coach at Coppell Debate Academy (22-23)
Coaching Intern at Coppell High School (22-23)
World of Words Institute Instructor (Summer '23 & '24)
Victory Briefs Institute Instructor (Summer '24)

Hey y'all! I'm a sophomore at UT Austin who debated at Coppell High School (in Texas) for about 4 years; 3 years in World Schools Debate and a dabbling in Extemp, Congress, & Policy. I also debated for Team Texas my senior year and the NSDA Longhorns my junior year.

The tl;dr of winning my ballot: Win your asserted arguments, have a clearly delineated claim, warrant, impact structure with a strong (and mechanized) link-chain, and make sure you weigh your impacts vs the other side. BE COMPARATIVE and CHARITABLE! make sure to have fun :)

I don't have an issue with speed – unless you're unintelligible – but if I ask you to slow down please do so.

I'll automatically vote someone down if they're being discriminatory or harmful in any way shape or form, those rhetorics have no place in debate so be careful about what you say.

Longer Ballot:

Make sure you engage on the most important parts of the motion; be clear in your weighing and have logical extensions (throughout the whole debate!)
Weighing at the end of the round should be comparative and charitable of both sides best/worst grounds
I'm going to buy most arguments at face value – unless they're ridiculous – so whoever bestproves their argument and weighing is going to win --> if someone makes a dumb argument but you don't refute it, I'm taking it at face value – no judge intervention!
Prop Teams: You have to establish a compelling framing at the top; given the skew in the Opp Block you need to set up your Prop 3 to get as far ahead as possible --> I'm not taking new arguments in the P4 (but equally if the O3-4 is new content I'll dock it)
Opp Teams: Use the block strategically – don't repeat content and make sure you sound different (but cohesive)
Weighing – in my opinion – functions on two levels: factual/tangible content & in round (meta) weighing
Principled arguments: I'll buy them and they can win rounds but only if they're weighed effectively; I need to hear from the top why I should prefer this argument over any possible/potential practical from the opposing side – don't hang your principle and then tell me to vote independent of practical
Regrets: don't be daft, they're inherently retroactive in nature so if you make a mechanizing argument I'm going to look at you funny. the biggest thing is to make sure your counterfactual is believable and likely
Stylistically have fun! I loved the style aspect of WSD when I debated and I think its about being your own speaker, the more fun I have the better the speaks for the round lol

Have fun and good luck :)

If you have any questions reach out at sahith.mocharla@gmail.com, always happy to help!

Srikanth Moparthy Elkins High School 6 rounds

Noah William Morse Hire 6 rounds

Kirsten Nash Hendrickson High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:56 PM CDT

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Kelly Mai Thy Nguyen Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:29 AM CDT

Hi! I’m Kelly (she/her) and I’m currently a freshman at the University of Houston Honors College. I competed in World Schools in high school w/ the Houston Urban Debate League, TFA, and NSDA + Team Texas :)

Email: kellytnguyen30@gmail.com

[World Schools Debate]

*General Notes

Your case should be laid out in a way that even someone who isn’t familiar with the motion or World Schools can follow along. Always assume that I don’t know the examples or topic. Do NOT overcomplicate your material thinking that'll automatically win you the round. I prefer organized and straight forward rounds.

If you're a novice, then no worries! We all start somewhere and I'd be happy to answer any general questions you might have before/after!

*Framing

Please do NOT turn the entire round into a framing debate. Make sure to get framing settled out early on. Your framework should break down the motion + set your team’s stance well, and doing so gives me a good impression (i.e. clear characterizations, model/counterfactual). However, it shouldn’t be so defensive that it makes it impossible for the other team to productively engage (i.e. very unfair burdens). Don’t be afraid to contest the other team’s framing + reinforce/refer back to your own if necessary.

*Substantives

Your arguments don't just need to make sense, but also need to be ORGANIZED. Just because you have more material doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re ahead in the round. Never underestimate the importance of organization! I’m always flowing (except during replies), so if you’re numerating and signposting your material, that will help your team win my ballot. By clearly organizing your warrants/impacts, you’re making my job easier.

I’m fine with both principled and practical arguments. Be careful to not make a practical argument, but label it as a principled arg. (principles need to be proven/weighed regardless of any practical outcomes).

*Clashes/Engagement

I was a 3rd speaker, so I expect clashes in the 3rd speech. I'm going to vote off of clashes over individual arguments because those are dropped or get lost throughout the round. Lay out your most important pieces of argumentation and be sure to weigh! Your arguments may be good, but tell me why the impacts they create matter in terms of the bigger scope. I love seeing rounds where one side is able to generously engage with the other team's material, yet still prove WHY THEIR WORLD IS COMPARATIVELY BETTER. So, don't forget to use comparative weighing to your advantage. If any new substantive material is presented after the 2nd speaker block, I will not consider it (you can still bring in new examples to extend on material that's already been said).

*Strategy

Know which arguments/impacts your team should prioritize as the round progresses. You're not going to win all of your arguments, so be careful on what content you collapse on. Something to be mindful of is unknowingly switching your bench stance (basically your team contradicting itself trying to save itself in another area of the round).

*Style

I LOVE style. However, I will not vote off of style alone, unlike many judges I ran into while I was a debater. Your style needs to be able to reinforce your engaging refutation/content. Style looks different for everyone, but I love seeing good tone, unique phrases, or humor (be polite!).

Best of luck!!! :D

Thuan Nguyen Hire 6 rounds

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

Debate

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

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

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

4. Additional items.

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

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

Adesuwa Omoruyi Greenhill School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:39 AM CDT

Presumption

I am one of the most naturally neutral individuals I know. I will NOT favor a side because I SHOULD. I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. Don't assume -- just explain.

Speed

Be understood. Be clear. If I don't flow it... IT NEVER HAPPENED. Remember this during warrants / impacts / extensions. I rarely call for cards, so if I need to hear it, make sure you set the scene for optimal results.

Theory/ K

Debating about debate is fun and engaging -- if it makes sense. Silly theories are just silly, but go back to my section on presumption - I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. If you convince me that the theory is valid, then it is for the round. I will not assume how it functions or the reasonability of it. Prove that it does or doesn't. A good K with clear explinations, links and impacts are refreshing to me. Neg must explain why aff can't perm the day away -- why is the alt superior? Aff, why is the perm better than the alt and case solo? This is where speed choices are important.

Evidence

Here are a few questions you should ask yourself: Do you understand the card? Does it link to the argumentation presented? Is it topical to the context you're using it in? Do the warrants exist in the text? Is it qualified? Is it dated? ....is clipping truly worth it?

T's, DA's, CPs

Policy was my niche back in the day. That being said -- I'll buy it if its clear, all conditions are met, it makes sense, and if it actually does something / proves a point. I will follow the flow, and the flow alone. Keep it clean!

Finally... most importantly... tell me WHY I should be voting for you. Yes. I want voters. Explain why a drop is catastrophic. Tell me why case outweighs. You know what happens when you assume... don't assume that I'm rolling with you. Explain why I should be.

Spkr Point Breakdown

30 Likely to take the tournament

29.5 Contender to the crown

29 Excited to see how deep you go!

28.5 Highly likely to clear

28 Clearing is possible

27.5 On the bubble, keep pushing

27 Congrats on earning entry into the tournament!!

*email chain: - use file sharing software if available instead of email chain pls

Daniela Paul Hire 6 rounds

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

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

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

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

Who is She?

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

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

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

DEBATE

LD:

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

now the rest of the stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tech>truth

PF:

Tech>Truth

defense is not sticky

ev analysis>

see pref sheet above!

Worlds:My bread and butter at a tournament :)

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

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

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

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

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

Weighing: When it comes to weighing, consider the following

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

Speech:

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

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

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

Stacy Peppers Clear Springs High School 6 rounds

Fadilat Raji Alief Elsik High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 10:23 AM EDT

Hi my name is Fadilat (she/her). I do have experience competing and judging in Congress and WSD and some judging experience in LD but I'm still pretty new to judging.

These paradigms are for WSD but a lot can apply across different events.

I don't like to set too many rules or restrictions for my rounds. My paradigm is simply a list of preferences, and they can be mostly overridden by good debating. So don't let my preferences sway you away from doing what you want. You have the freedom to run whatever argument you want and I will do my best to judge it fairly. However, please be mindful of arguments made, I want everyone to feel safe and respected here.

But here are my 3 main things for the round:

Etiquette: Be courteous to your fellow debaters. I won't tolerate rudeness or discrimination. Be mindful of the arguments you run and how you conduct yourself in the room. I am unlikely to vote for someone that yells at their opponents, yells at me about their opponents, makes rude or overly aggressive comments, or runs an argument that is offensive or discriminatory. Ultimately be nice, debate is not that deep even though it may seem like it sometimes. Don't ruin a round/tournament for someone else who will remember your rudeness.
Speed: I place high importance on the pacing of speeches because to me it’s not how much you’ve said but really the clarity and depth of what you have spoken that’s really going to sway my decision. If what you're saying isn’t clear enough to be understood, chances are, I didn’t catch that argument. Follow this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you probably are. WSD is about style which involves how you present the content you have and it should be able to be judged by the "average educated citizen" so please do me and yourself a favor and speak at a good pace. Talking too fast is bad stylistically and strategically. I want to be able to hear your argument because that’s what I’m here for.
Above all have fun

Michael Rutledge Clear Brook High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 2:16 AM CDT

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

Ava Said Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 7:30 AM EDT

UPDATE FOR WSD @ TFA:

WSD didn't exist when I was in high school, but I judge it almost exclusively now including into deep elims of TFA State, UT, and Berkeley so my experience is not null.

Big things for me: I like clash, I want yall to answer the question, and I reward good on the spot analysis of your opponents argument, don't get so caught up in your case that your forget to answer your opponent's argument. Also I am fine with speed, but I don't think its necessary in worlds and honestly I prefer speech's that are stylistic and given like a PA. Please let me know if you have any questions and congrats on making it to state!

IE: I am pretty open to any stylistic choices or preparations of a speech/script, it is an Interpretation after all, so creative choices are welcome!

Extemp- You should have ample amount of evidence for the three main claims you decide to make. Please have your speech as structured as possible as it makes it easier for me to follow along and judge. It’s better for your speech to run 5 minutes, but be clear and conscie than for you to stay up there for seven minutes rambling on.

OO/INFO- There should be at least three sources in your speech. I don’t mind when you try and break the very formulaic structure of OO or info, but I should be able to easily follow along. I.E. you dont have to go “But first, then, finally” but hey whatver works for you, works for me, speak clear, be confident, and have fun up there.

HI- Use your space, HI is about physical humor as much as its about the jokes you are telling! Racist/misogynistic/Xenophobia etc humor is not funny. It’s not.

DI- Be careful with your content, DI’s are serious and I understand that, but be careful with how graphic you get. I am not a squimish judge so curse words dont bother me and mature material is fine, just try and be as tasteful as possible. And DONT mis-represent a character I.E. if you are playing a forty year old mom who just suffered the loss of her son, thats fine, but if you are speaking for an identity you cannot identify with, maybe not. DONT USE SLURS. Even for effect. It’s not needed. Use the space and be comfortable with silence. There is a lot of pauses and silence in DI and when its intentional l it works really well, so dont be afraid of it!

PR/PO- Don’t let your binder fall flat. I don’t think there is one right way to hold the binder, but there are a million wrong ways. It’s awesome when you find a way to incorporate the binder for techy stuff, but its def not necessary.

Lingering thoughts..

Your teaser should give me a clue about what your piece is about, (AND IT SHOULD BE MEMORIZED) it doesnt have to be a summary, but a couple of lines to let me know where the piece ie headed is great!

TIME. Be concious of it. Don’t run 10:29 or 10:30, once the fist is up WRAP IT UP.

If you forget your piece, take a moment to pause and collect your thoughts, try not to show it in your face and dont worry about it too much.

Be respectful to other performers, if you are on your phone, eating loudly, sleeping, or being distracting in anyway. I might factor it into your rank. It’s not cool, respect eachothers work.

audrey schwartz Hire 6 rounds

Sanjay Senthilvelan Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 5:31 AM EDT

Hey, I'm a freshman at Rice, and I've done Speech and Debate all four years of high school, primarily competing in Congress, Worlds, PF, and Extemp. I'm always looking forward to judging spirited and respectful debates and speeches.

Congress:

I strongly believe in the "debate" part of the Congressional Debate, so speeches should have either direct or indirect clashes, with the exception of the sponsorship speech. About that speech, I strongly value a proper sponsorship speech (i.e., explaining the legislation and the foundations for the debate). I will "give more points" to someone who gives the speech when the chamber struggles to produce a sponsorship speaker. For POs, I would like to see effective and efficient round control.

Worlds:

Worlds is pretty unique compared to other forms of debate and rather grounded in reality, so debaters shouldn't be spreading or link-chaining to crazy arguments. Interpreting the motion is a very important component in a World's round. I expect competitors to understand how the motion's verb wording (ex., would, believes, regrets, etc.) affects the focus of the debate and to effectively argue for their interpretation of the motion throughout the round. I also think consistency is important between speakers. At the very least, the team's best ideas need to be argued by each speaker.

If you say you're making a principle argument, it better be a principle argument.

Debate:

I have competed in most debate events, so I understand how the round will proceed from start to finish. However, you may need to explain jargon before you use it. I am new to Theory and Ks; use them at your own risk. I can flow decently well, but I cannot flow spreading. If you see me stop writing to lift my pencil up, you are speaking too fast for me.

Speech:

When done right, speech rounds are some of the most interesting to listen to. I'll value speeches highly when they show the speaker's personality or attempt to be entertaining. I'll also be looking at the content intensely. The speech should be well-informed by credible sources and make strong logical arguments from evidence. Lastly, I appreciate speakers who try to have clarity, with a clear organization for the full speech and a line of reasoning for specific points.

Interp

I'll rank speakers based on overall enjoyment and originality.

SunHee Simon Coppell High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 5:12 PM EDT

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

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

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

Cassidy St. John Kingwood High School 6 rounds

Jeffrey Stirl William P. Clements High School 6 rounds

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School 3 rounds

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

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

Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

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

Worlds:

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

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

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

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

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

Alma Villareal Westchester Academy For International Studies 6 rounds

Chuck Walts The Hockaday School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:45 AM CDT

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Kris Wright Irma Rangel YWLS 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

(Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Login to Tabroom

TFA State 2024

2024 — Houston, TX/US

World Schools Paradigm List

Judges