Tabroom.com

Cedar Ridge Raiders TFA Invitational

2024 — Cedar Ridge HS (Round Rock), TX/US

PF Judge Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Eliza Avramova Hire

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 12:36 PM CST

LC Anderson 22

UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of an ld/cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round

for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

Will Erard Hire

Bryce Hann Hire

Leonardo Leyva Hire None

Yeshwant Mahambare McNeil High School

John Mast James Bowie High School

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 2:15 AM CST

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

Meha Parikh Westwood None

Ray Sky Westwood

Max Vanderheyden Stephen F Austin (Austin)

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 10:02 AM CST

He/him. I am a debate coach.

Paradigm: Extemporaneous Speaking

Clarity and Organization: I value speeches that are well-organized and easy to follow. In extemp, it’s essential for speakers to clearly structure their main points with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Each part should flow logically and contribute to the overall argument. If a speaker’s ideas are hard to follow, this may impact their score.
Answering the Question: The speaker must directly address the question they were given. I look for clear, specific responses to the question and for each point to connect back to it. Speeches that veer off-topic or fail to answer the question may lose marks.
Evidence and Support: Strong, relevant evidence is critical in extemp. I expect speakers to provide facts, examples, or expert opinions to back up their claims. For novice level, I understand that evidence might be simpler, but effort should be made to include accurate information from credible sources.
Depth of Analysis: I look for critical thinking and depth in explaining why the evidence supports the speaker’s arguments. The more a speaker can connect their points and explain their relevance, the stronger their analysis will appear.
Delivery: Delivery includes aspects such as eye contact, vocal variety, pace, and body language. The best speakers are engaging, confident, and conversational rather than relying heavily on notes. At the novice level, minor nervousness is understandable, but a strong delivery can significantly enhance a speaker’s impact.
Timing: Extemp speeches are typically limited to 7 minutes, with a 30-second grace period. I will be mindful of timing, and speakers who go significantly over time may be penalized. Efficiently using time to cover all main points is crucial.
Overall Impression: Lastly, I look at the overall impression of the speech. This includes the effectiveness of the speaker’s message, the persuasiveness of their arguments, and their confidence in presenting. A strong extemp speech leaves a lasting impression.

Speech Points Assignment Policy (100-Point Scale)

Starting Score: 90 points
Adjustment Range: +/- 10 points based on performance in key areas

Core Criteria and Adjustments

Content and Organization
- Clarity of Points: If the speech has clear, organized points, add +2. If the points are unclear or lack organization, deduct -2.
- Answering the Question: If the speaker directly answers the question, add +1. If they stray off-topic or don’t address the question effectively, deduct -1.
Evidence and Support
- Quality of Evidence: If the speaker uses strong, relevant evidence, add +2. For limited or weak evidence, deduct -2.
- Depth of Analysis: If the speaker connects evidence well and provides solid analysis, add +2. For superficial analysis, deduct -2.
Delivery
- Eye Contact: If the speaker maintains good eye contact with the audience, add +1. For limited eye contact, deduct -1.
- Vocal Variety and Pace: For clear, engaging vocal delivery, add +2. If the speech lacks variety or is difficult to follow due to pacing issues, deduct -2.
- Body Language: If confident and natural, add +1. For overly stiff or distracting movements, deduct -1.
Timing
- Adherence to Time Limits: If the speaker stays within the time limit, no change. If they exceed the time significantly or are much too brief, deduct -2.
Overall Impression
- Impact and Engagement: If the speech is memorable and engaging, add +2. For lack of engagement, deduct -2.
- Audience Connection: If the speaker connects well with the audience, add +1. If not, deduct -1.

Final Score Ranges

96-100: Exceptional performance. Clear, engaging, well-supported speech with minimal areas for improvement.
90-95: Strong performance with minor issues. Answered the question with solid evidence and good delivery.
85-89: Competent but needing improvement. Some issues in organization, evidence, or delivery affected the overall impact.
Below 85: Needs significant improvement. Major issues with clarity, evidence, or delivery impacted the effectiveness.

Debate Paradigm Overview

As a judge, I prioritize debates that promote educational growth and critical thinking, using a discourse analysis paradigm to evaluate the arguments presented. I assess the round based on how debaters use language and narratives to shape perceptions, question or reinforce societal norms, and engage with power structures. I encourage debaters to be mindful of the rhetorical choices they make and to critically engage with the implications of their discourse, aiming not just for persuasive arguments, but also for those that contribute meaningfully to understanding and addressing deeper societal issues.

Novice Paradigm

In novice debates, I prioritize the quality and clarity of argumentation over the number or source of cards read. While evidence is important, what matters more to me is how well you explain and contextualize your arguments, engage with your opponent’s points, and clearly communicate your position. I reward logical reasoning, effective analysis, and direct clash over simply citing sources. In other words, focus on making coherent, well-explained arguments rather than just reading evidence verbatim. Remember, a well-reasoned explanation often carries more weight than a pile of unread or poorly explained cards.

If you don’t fully understand an argument, use your Cross-Examination (CX) or Points of Information (POIs) to ask the other team to clarify it. If they are unable to explain their evidence or arguments in their own words, I will likely discount that argument. Reading cards without understanding them undermines effective communication and critical engagement. Debate is not just about citing sources; it’s about comprehending and articulating your position clearly. If you can't explain it, don't expect me to weigh it.

Evaluation Criteria

Framework/Standards: I evaluate the round based on the framework or criteria established by the debaters. If no framework is given, I default to a discourse analysis approach, focusing on the language and narratives employed in the debate and their potential to shape perceptions, reinforce or challenge power structures, and influence societal norms. Debaters should clearly articulate why their framework should be preferred and how their arguments contribute to or critique the dominant discourse.
Argumentation: I value logical consistency and well-developed arguments. Evidence is important, but how you explain and weigh it matters more. Assertions without warrants hold little weight.
Impact Calculus: Weighing is crucial. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. If you don’t weigh impacts, I will have to do it myself, which might not work in your favor.
Clash and Rebuttals: Direct engagement with the opposing side's arguments is essential. Point-by-point refutation is good, but it’s even better if you can link arguments back to the bigger picture and show how they interact.
Delivery and Persuasion: While I don't weigh style over substance, clear communication and persuasive rhetoric can enhance your argument. Avoid spreading if you can't do it clearly—I won't vote on what I can't understand.

Specifics

Speed: I am comfortable with a moderate pace, but clarity is non-negotiable. If I miss an argument because of speed, it’s on you.
Theory and Kritiks: I’m open to theory and kritiks but prefer if they are well-explained and accessible. If you run them, make sure they’re more than just jargon and clearly explain the link, impact, and role in the round.
Topicality: I’ll vote on T if it's well-executed and the standards are clear. Explain why the debate should be framed a certain way and how the violation impacts the round.
Evidence Challenges: I will consider challenges if there are blatant misrepresentations. Integrity matters, but I’m not looking to get bogged down in debates over card-cutting practices.
Speaker Points: I reward organization, clarity, and effective argumentation. I penalize rudeness, excessive hostility, and poor time management.
Burdens: I expect debaters to not only establish and fulfill their argumentative burdens but also critically engage with the implications of their rhetoric and narratives. If a side fails to justify the use of certain discourses or does not adequately address the impact of their language on societal perceptions and power dynamics, it will significantly affect my evaluation of their arguments.
Presumption: In cases where neither side meets their burden of proof or the arguments are equally balanced, I will default to presumption, which in a discourse analysis framework means siding with the position that least reinforces harmful or oppressive narratives and maintains a more critical and reflective stance. If a team fails to address the implications of their rhetoric or perpetuates problematic discourses without justification, presumption may work against them.
Disclosure: While I appreciate good faith disclosure practices, I do not require it for a fair evaluation; however, lack of disclosure may affect my assessment of arguments like theory or fairness claims.
Role of the Judge: I view my role as an impartial evaluator committed to fostering a fair and educational debate environment. While I will not intervene in the round, I will critically engage with the arguments presented, considering not only their logical coherence but also their broader societal implications. My goal is to provide constructive feedback and support a debate experience that promotes both strategic thinking and critical reflection.
Use of Cross-Examination (CX) and Points of Information (POIs): I place a high value on effective use of CX or POIs as they demonstrate active engagement and a deeper understanding of the arguments in play. Use these opportunities to clarify complex points, challenge inconsistencies, and strategically advance your position. Clear and respectful questioning or points can significantly enhance the depth of analysis and clash in the round.
Approach to New Arguments in Later Speeches: Introducing new substantive arguments in later speeches limits the opposing side’s ability to respond and detracts from the fairness of the debate. I generally disregard these arguments unless they are direct responses to issues newly raised by the opposing team. Focus on crystallizing and extending existing arguments instead of introducing new ones, and use the time to engage in deeper analysis and weighing.
Weighing Mechanisms and Comparative Analysis: Effective weighing and comparative analysis are crucial for decision-making. Beyond telling me why your impacts matter, explain why they matter more in the context of the round. Use frameworks like probability, magnitude, and timeframe to weigh competing impacts clearly and persuasively. I value a well-structured impact calculus that ties back to your framework and the round’s central issues.
Debater Conduct and Respect: I expect all participants to maintain a high level of respect and professionalism throughout the round. Aggressive behavior, personal attacks, or derogatory language are not acceptable and will negatively impact your speaker points. Debate is not just about winning arguments but also about fostering a collaborative and respectful space for intellectual growth and meaningful discourse.

Conclusion

I’m here to reward strong, logical argumentation and effective engagement. Keep it clear, make your arguments accessible, and tell me why you win within the framework you’ve established. I'm looking forward to a great round!

Emily Anne Walker Hire

Login to Tabroom

Cedar Ridge Raiders TFA Invitational

2024 — Cedar Ridge HS (Round Rock), TX/US

PF Judge Paradigm List

Judges