for the middle schooler tournament:

I'm a standard judge. EXTEND your arguments (re-explain the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument in summary and final focus), respond and interact with your opponent's arguments, explain why your impacts matter. Above all, have fun and don't stress!

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

paradigm (mainly geared toward pf but same for any other debate event)

plano west '26

nats x1, g-toc x2, champed tfa '24

add me to the chain yangbaipf@gmail.com

Bolded is TLDR

Yes, if you are any of the -isms then you will be dropped with lowest speaks possible and be reported to tab.

Overall, I'm a tech judge for substance and a flay for prog.

I'd like to think of my style of judging as fairly simple.I look to the weighing debate first, and whoever is winning, I look to their case. If there's a significant risk of offense, I vote there. If there's not, I look to the other team's case and if there's a significant risk of offense then I vote there. If both teams have no offense, I presume neg but can be convinced otherwise. If both teams have marginal risk of offense, then I'll go back to the weighing to see who's winning under a lens of marginal offense (disclaimer: I will 99% intervene so don't do this to me).

By extension of that, the weighing debate is probably the most important thing in the round since often both teams have significant risk of offense. I'll reward smart weighing mechs with high speaks but oftentimes the weighing debate is where warranting and intuition go to die; please don't add to that. In high school, I used try or die weighing a lot, but it shouldn't a shield to hide behind warranted arguments. There is such thing as 0 risk of offense. Also, if you make link level weighing (e.g. prereqs and short circuits) then you need have it accompanied by other weighing mechs (like timeframe) to uplayer the opposing team's link ins.

Email chains are good. Send docs for all pieces of evidence you read BEFORE you speak. Send marked docs if you diverge from those. I won't flow off them, but it's helpful to be able to check evidence. Do not send Google Docs where you turn off copying functionalities and delete the doc after the round. Send a PDF or docx. For some reason, some people are requiring that you send analytics that are on your flow to the email chain. I personally disagree and think that if you're giving responses off your flow it doesn't need to be in the doc.

Speed is fine. As long as I have a doc and you are clear (I'll say "clear" twice and then just do my best which prob isn't what you want), go crazy. However, if you're obviously spreading your opponents out of the round, your speaker points will often be less than what you want. That being said, speed should be strategic. There's no point in going 300 wpm where every other word is "uh" and you have terrible word efficiency. Not only does it make it more mind-numbing to listen to, but it also can be really bad because I won't know what to actually flow. Also, just because you're spreading doesn't mean you should be devoid of any vocal inflections. I don't want to hear a 4 minute monotone blur of this background noise in your spreading because everybody is gonna tune out. You can speak fast and still preserve your vocal style like you're speaking at a normal pace. Read the idea, not just the words on the page.

On substance rounds, I think that spamming contentions often leaves me in a situation where I don't know how to evaluate arguments and where the backhalf frankly has little to no warranting.Reading 2 or 3 arguments with solid warranting and spikes and maybe a hidden link is far more appealing to me as a judge than 5 blips of arguments. By extension, turns in rebuttal also require all parts of an argument: uniqueness (a little more lenient on that), link, internal link, impact, AND WEIGHING. I'm not voting for a turn without warranting or an impact in rebuttal that somehow gains all of those things in the backhalf.

Conceded arguments are true, but only the conceded parts. For example, if you read evidence that a certain policy leads to a certain bad outcome, but the other team isn't advocating for that policy, then I'm not voting on the argument. Moreover, teams can respond to weighing based on conceded arguments, so just because you conceded a turn or hidden link doesn't mean it's a game over issue for you. If you concede weighing, then it'll be tough but you can still justify why your weighing uplayers.

On theory, I default to yes RVIs, reasonability > CIs, and DTA. Why? So you actually read warrants why RVIs are bad, why CIs are better, and why you should DTD. I don't actually believe it, but just wanna make sure y'all are reading these arguments. An "RVI" for my sake is a defensive argument on the theory layer (e.g. a counterinterp that debaters don't have to disclose is probably responded to via no RVIs while a counterinterp that debaters SHOULDN'T disclose is not an RVI), if you really want to convince me otherwise, you have to explain why when you originally read the shell. Friv theory makes me mad but ig it's fine, but the threshold of responses is incredibly low and if you're doing it against novices, expect your speaks to suffer.

On kritiks, I am definitely not the judge for you to be reading it. I will do my best to evaluate and do all that stuff, but I am a substance debater at heart and especially with K affs am very clueless on the lit and how to break certain areas of clash. If you still wanna read it, go ahead, but explain the argument so a person not well-versed with the lit can understand.

Most importantly, safety is the number 1 priority in a round. If you feel uncomfortable during a round, please do whatever you need to do to make sure that's not the case, and let me or tab know if we have to do something about that.

Jasper ‘24 | Plano West ‘26

Hey guys, I'm Arjun

I'm a 11th grader at Plano West Senior High School and I've been doing LD for 3 years on the TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. My email is elangoarjun0@gmail.combut I prefer a speechdrop. I don't really care what you read and I'll do my best to understand it (if in doubt please ask), I'll vote on mostly anything unless it's homophobic/racist/sexist, with the key exception being args I don't understand(I don't want to vote for a side just because I don't understand the opp, but I'd rather do that than just vote randomly) etc.

GENERAL

-Don't be disrespectful

-Tech > truth but just because a dropped argument is true, that doesn't mean it wins you the debate unless you explain the implications of why it does

-Organized speeches are key to better speaker points(PLS SIGNPOST)

-Every argument needs a claim, warrant and impact

-I’m not the fastest flower - go about 80% of your usual speed if you want to be sure that I catch everything you say especially for rebuttals

-I’m pretty expressive, so if you see me look confused, you might want to explain a little more

PREF SHEET

1-LARP

1/2-Trad

Ks-2/3

Performance-5(Good luck man)(if you pull this off expect high speaks)

2 - T(I love T debates)

2 - Phil(familiar with rawls,hobbes, locke, kant, korsgaard(anything else needs more warranting)

LARP/TRAD

Do whatever you want I'll get it

Ks

good with this two but i want clear delineation of alt,rob,etc.

PERFORMANCE

performance is going to have to be incredible for me to vote off just that(best chance at a ballot is a performance-smth else combo)

SPEED

-Feel free to go at whatever speed you want to, but it must be comprehensible

-If its middle school just don't spread unless ur opps r good with it

SPEAKS

30 = You did somewhere between pretty well and godly

29+ = You did pretty well

28.5 = You did aight

<28 = you have a lot to work on

<25= You did something that is not ok

Lose speaks if you

-go over time(minus like the 7 secondish flex)

-speak too quietly/i can't hear you

-unclear enough that I have to yell clear(one freebee then its an issue)

-arrive late and you're not cross entered

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers. This obviously does not apply to tournaments that task me with selecting the best PO in a given session, and not ranking them against everyone else in the room.

A few other particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read the item you're discussing (unless it was read to them before debate started).

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a middle schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

i stole this from someone else's paradigm i literally know nothing about this event.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion.

Oratory

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research. I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples). I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, well-defined points supported with a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone.

IEs

Just maintain eye contact, be yourself, and have fun

Final notes

Don't be rude

Don't abuse novices

Have fun

junior @Greenhill

smkoshy28@gmail.com

tech>truth

You should read whatever you're comfortable with. Speed is fine.

Don't be mean or say something offensive.

tech > truth, dont spread, pls extend/weigh your arguments and give me ballot-directive language.

do a speech drop or add me to the email chain - innayi07@gmail.com

don't be afraid to ask questions! and ofc have fun! thx! ^__^