I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

As an English teacher, I do my best to balance between the content of the argument and the conveyance of that argument. When looking at the evidence, the confidence, and the structure, all these can lead to a strong argument for either side.

I like puns. Extra imaginary points for puns.

I am an Ares, I like lively but respectful clash.

All events are about making an convincing argument and presenting it well.

forensics@tempeprep.org

Congress:

45% presentation, 55% content. I expect lively debate and I appreciate (and take note of) good cross examination. I don't care for jargon ("vote aff", etc).

Presiding officers get a special place in my heart and will generally rank for a standard/competent PO performance. A PO performance blending effectiveness with pizazz will rank higher in my book. A really effective PO will coordinate with other competitors, exemplify authority, cleverly use humor to engage the room, and leverage parliamentary procedures to maximize the number of speeches and equitably distribute speaking among the room. Extra imaginary points for whomever can gavel the loudest.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum:

No spreading. Organized claim, warrant, impacts are important for me. You need to effectively synthesize the round and weigh impacts for me. Please refer to your evidence by some key word or phrase, I won't necessarily remember authors only. I prefer traditional debate (a must in Public Forum) so if you run something progressive our out there please explain it like I am 5 years old. Debaters who are witty, personable, and clear/concise speakers will score well with me - I'll vote on the content that's presented and weighed in the round.

Individual Events:

Even though IEs are not strictly debate, I expect you to make a novel argument and support it via your speech or interp. You need to convey to me why I should care about your piece - why is it worth performing? For interp, please use good judgement when choosing accents, caricatures, and themes - I expect themes that are appropriate for a high school environment although some sparse elements of adult themes are welcome if done tastefully.

I am a lay judge. Please keep in mind a couple of things.

1. Please speak at medium pace and speak clearly, so that I will be able to understand everything that you are saying.
2. Please do not use debate jargon.
3. Do not assume I know everything about about the topic. Please make sure to give clear explanations about the arguments that you are making.
4. I would like comparative analysis and weighing.
5. I will not be keeping time. Each team should be keeping their own time and should not be going over time.
6. Be specific, I don't want generic claims and I want you to interact with your opponents arguments.
7. I also heavily value statistics, but you need to back it up with real analysis.
8. I will pay attention during all crosses, so make sure that you that you can explain your arguments well.
9. Make sure to be polite and respectful to each other in round.
10. Don't forget to have fun!

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

I am a parent judge

Please talk slowly and no speaking fast as It will be hard for me to understand
Only do traditional debate

Please time yourself

I will pay attention to all arguments

I will try to judge fairly and not based off of speaking

I'm a non-interventional judge. I like debates with meaningful arguments and don't encourage too much speed or aggressive tactics. I prefer quality over quantity. I'm going to be diligent in taking notes and watching for impact, flow, link, and rebuttal in the debates. I'm not a big fan of definitions as most of the time both sides are similar. I'd expect Cross to be focused on clarifying your opponent's points/cases but not as an opportunity to humiliate. I appreciate the summary at the end to clearly point out why your case is more weighted and why I should vote for you.

I wish you all the best!

Please do not spread.

If I feel like you are talking too fast, I will ask you to be clear twice. After that, if I can't understand you I will simply put down my pen. I believe that spreading is poison to the debate community. I do not want to be added to your email chain, as I should not have to read your case in order to understand it. If there is an evidence dispute or I feel like there is any other reason I need to see a card, I will ask. I find off-time roadmaps to be a waste of time, and while you are speaking I will always keep time and immediately drop my pen once your time is up.

I value topicality above all else. Debate should be an educational experience focused on the resolution. Regarding Ks, your arguments should not simply be ones that you could repeat ad-nauseam for any topic and a lot of Ks don't pass that test. In fairness, a Neg K can be topical and I will evaluate it accordingly if so. However, K Affs by their very nature generally do not meet the burden of defending the resolution and are there is a high probability of me just dropping you if you run one. Regarding Theory, be very careful. I recognize there are things that either side can do which are abusive or frivolous even if the base argument is topical. If you can thread that particular needle when responding, more power to you.

For weighing, I prefer probability over other mechanisms and I am receptive to timeframe as well. I'm fine with reasonable magnitude weighing too. However, we live in a reality in which extinction has not yet occurred despite the countless number of dire warnings given by debaters over the years. I feel like debaters are intelligent enough to understand the distinction of something that could arguably be true vs. an impact that is just included in your case as a magnitude bomb.

Finally, tech is of course important in any debate round, but I also recognize that there are also some things that are objectively true. If you have a card telling me the sky is green, that does not mean I have to accept it as the truth, even if your opponent does not have a specific card refuting that (because why would they?). However, for any reasonable argument that isn't straight-up factually incorrect and flows through, I will absolutely find them credible regardless of any previous opinions I have on a given topic.

The bottom line is that if you're being intellectually honest and recognize that a debate round exists within the confines the real world, that will maximize your chances of picking up my ballot.

I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.

Dos:

• Have depth in understanding of the topic.
• Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
• Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
• Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
• Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.

Don’ts:

• Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
• Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
• Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.

Misc:

• Truth > Tech
• Argument Quality > Quantity
• Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.

I am a speech and debate coach and an English teacher, who taught logic, technical writing, composition, and Literature in college for 11 years. I debated in high school. These are some of the things you should consider when debating:

1. Speak clearly, do not spread. I am mostly deaf and I rely on imperfect hearing devices and lip reading. If I can't hear your arguments you haven’t made your argument.

2. Have empirical evidence and use it concisely.

3. Consider your structure. Make the time for a well thought out planned case or response that makes sense logically.

4. Be mature and respectful at all times. Yes, be confident and assertive, but do not yell, bully, belittle, roll your eyes, use sarcasm etc. . ..

5. For speaker points make sure to have a polished presentation style with appropriate eye contact, volume, dynamics, dramatic pauses, rhetorical appeals, tone etc. . .

Updated 9/16/24 for Jim Fountain

I am appreciative and grateful to support the Arizona Speech and Debate community. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the time and energy you, your teammates and coaches invest in preparation.

Congress

PO begins the session ranked first. To move above the PO participants must present all three speeches *(authorship/sponsor, mid round and round ending speeches) that are exemplary and delivered with polish and grace. Based upon Scottsdale Prep I would repeat my hope that experienced CDers will PO. Remember never to read a speech and consider speaking throughout the session first, mid and last. Often that strategic decision will be reflected in your ranking. Never break cycle as that will also be reflected in your rankings to your detriment.

For more click here

Debate

No spreading, warranting > evidence, truth > tech, no progressive or critique. LD and PF please click through and skim the detailed paradigm you will find there as my preferences will be reflected in my rankings. Ethical use of evidence!!!

Click here for more.

Speech/Interp

I value a logical narrative over citation and authenticity in performance over technique

For further detail click here.

Introduction:

Hello! My name is Aden Smith! I did policy debate for 3 years as a 1A/2N and I'm currently doing policy debate at ASU. I've also done every debate event at least once, so if I'm not judging policy I still know what's going on enough to judge. I don't have any hardened biases, so my paradigm is mostly just my views on debate, and if that affects how you execute your strategy in rounds, then more power to you!

Round Docs:

I want round docs, whether I am judging CX, LD, or PF (calling cards if prep smh)I think we should have an email chain. It means that I can keep a more accurate flow and also make competitors more accountable to have quality evidence :). My email is: adenpaulsmith06@gmail.com.

Miscellaneous:

1. Condo is probably good?

2. Spread your heart out!

3. I am a chronic speaker point inflator, so I'm not gonna list those out.

4. Please send a word doc, having to download your google doc for you makes me sad.

5. Read your rehighlights, I feel like that's obvious.

6. If I put on headphones while writing RFD it's not because I hated the round, just need to concentrate.

7. Tech>Truth, and I mean that.

8. Don't be bigoted, I have like 2 jobs: 1. Choose a winner and 2. Ensure a safe space, I've got job 1 down, please make job 2 easy for me :)

Topic Knowledge:

K's: I have either ran or read your lit base at least once, so ~go off queen~ and you do you! For more specifics I have run: Asian melancholia, model minority, Orientalism, Queer, Poesis, Sonics, Security, Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Marx, Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Coloniality, Psychoanalysis, Kroker, Sharma, and Spanos. I have read the literature for: most genres of anti- blackness, feminism, Hinduism, Indio- sonics, anarchism, Kant (although don't run it I have no idea what that man is saying), biopower, disability, necropolitics, racial capitalism, and some more I can't think of right now!

CX: As far as the policy topic goes, I have done some top-level reading and have gone through the open evidence camp files. So I'll have a general idea on core topic controversies, but not of the extreme nuances that are going on in round, although this will obviously improve as we get further into the year.

LD: The September/ October topic isn't that deep (another reason that the wrong topic was chosen, but that's a different rant). I have read some cases for this topic, and will be judging somewhat frequently in LD. I'll know what's going on, just overview for me and I'll be fine.

PF: My first question is who put me in the PF pool? After that question I'll assess my life choices. Finally, I'd like to say that it's PF, it was made for a lay judge, so if they can understand it I sure hope that I can wrap my brain around it to a standard degree. There's also only so much that can go on in the following 40 minutes for me to understand, so I more than likely will be ok, and if not then I'll take some extra care in making my ballot to make sure a good decision is rendered.

Case:

1. Neg needs to be applying some pressure on case to where I at least have some suspicion about the Aff's impacts, or 2AR will have the easiest time of their life saying case outweighs.

2. I really like a good impact turn, just make sure that you are doing some good weighing on it and not just using it a mute button to one impact.

3. Solvency is an underrated argument, if it was good enough I'd totally vote on a terminal solvency deficit 2NR.

Trix:

1. I said tech over truth didn't I?

2. Give me a good speech doc though please, because there's gonna be a lot of random warrants going around and I need to keep track of them.

Theory:

1. Especially in LD, I'm probably more likely than most judges to vote on a theory shell. Like if PIC's are bad, and dropping the debater is good, then why not vote Aff?

2. Please put your theory shell in the doc, you aren't cool because the other team missed you 2 condo bad standards.

3. I'm pretty neutral on new Aff's bad and disclosure, just win the argument.

Phil:

1. I think phil is pretty cool... I'm just really bad at judging it... sorry.... you can run it if you want... there's just a 75% chance you get judge screwed.

Kritik's:

1. This is probably the type of round I feel most comfortable judging to the point where there is a noticeable skill gap between me in a K round versus me in a Policy round.

2. K Aff's aren't fair, its a bad idea to try to win that they are, Either win structural fairness, violence, or education and you are chilling on the T-USFG page.

3. T-USFG is a good strategy if you are able to win that fairness outweighs, but also that's literally the one argument that the Aff had to prep, so I've never really understood why Neg's go for it, I'd honestly prefer a KvK round even if it's just cap.

4. Both teams need to overview well, there's alot going on in these rounds so I need y'all to synthesize the story you are going for.

5. I think that K Neg's can win without winning pre-fiat framework if they play their cards right and weigh post-fiat.

6. I need a clear explanation of the Alt before the 2nr or its new.

7. Aff's against K neg's should feel free to defend their representations, I think heg good, security good, china good, and cap good are valid strategies.

Topicality:

1. I'm very willing to vote on a well executed T debate.

2. A good neg T-interp needs to give me a caselist if they are going for limits, and probably a TVA to moot Aff education claims.

3. Reasonability if probably a valid argument?

Disadvantages:

1. I really love a good Politics round and it would make me happy if you gave me one :)

2. The two most important things in a DA to me are a coherent story (which means a good overview) and weighing, because its really sad when I buy 100% of the DA, but the Aff outweighs, so weigh for me please.

3. Intrinsicness is probably a valid argument and you can maybe perm a DA if you try hard enough.

4. Risk assessment is an important factor when I'm viewing the weighing debate.

Counterplans:

1. I like generic process counterplans, like alot.

2. I think the Aff should focus less on competitiveness and more on if the counterplan actually solves and any deficits to the counterplan.

3. I think the really long counterplans with a ton of planks are funny.

4. Counterplans should probably be either textually or functionally competitive, its the aff's job to tell me if they need to be both.