Plano West Wolf Classic
2024 — Plano, TX/US
NCX Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideJasper '24, Plano West '26
I had success on the state and national circuits
I'm a very typical tech judge. OK for substance, theory, and kritiks. Probably best for substance. I look to weighing first, and then I look to case to see if a team wins a link to such weighing. If that's the extent of what you want to read to understand me as a judge, your job is done. I will genuinely vote for anything.
That being said, like any judge, I have subtle biases that may swing the decision one way in a close debate. Here's a non-exhaustive list:
- I prefer slower, more comprehensible debates over speedy and wide debates
- I prefer smart analytics over overhighlighted, tangentially related evidence. Fantastic arguments may also have no evidence
- I think terminal or near terminal defense en lieu of a complex weighing debate is quite underrated
- I tend to vote for arguments that I understand more. I WILL NOT check the doc read context to understand your arguments; if I don't understand them when you read it, it's unlikely I'll vote for it
- I like innovative weighing instead of the 99% of debates that devolve to the aff reading try or die and the neg reading timeframe and prereq
- I prefer 2 or 3 contentions with good warranting over 4 or 5 with mid warranting
- Non-utilitarian framing is likely an uphill battle -- I don't particularly like "epistemological indicts" and personally don't think that it implicates well to specific scenarios
- I am a completely blank slate on theory. The point of theory is have debaters decide norms, and I think being dogmatic regarding what is "frivolous" and what constitutes a "good norm" deters change from the space
- I prefer Ks that give me a good idea of what my ballot does
Overall, these biases are very subtle, so doing these things likely will only increase the chance you have higher speaker points and potentially cause a tiebreaker in a close round. To be clear, I will evaluate from what I think is objective, but because of the biases mentioned above, my objective analysis will be slightly swayed. Generally, debate what you're best at and you will be fine.
parent judge- adapt well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Debate-
tech > truth, tabula rasa, Currently debating for jasper pf. Shoutout Ryan Chang.
-round etiquette is important and I don't condone abusive behaviour - if I feel you make the debate space unsafe, I will give you auto loss and lowest speaks
-fine with any speed - if your opponents can't handle speed, it is courteous not to spread. At that point, you would be winning not because you have genuinely won, but just because your opponents can't hear what you said
-if you are going very fast, send me and your opponents your case
-will evaluate any arguments tbh but like ur in middle school w middle school times if u read a shell i'll EXPLODE (tricks may go over my head if you don't implicate them)
-I'm generous with speaks it's definitely possible to get 30 speaks (see below)
-If you have questions please ask.
For IE's-
did OO for a short while so i get how time signals work but id prefer if an audience member did it
be captivating. tell a story.
-don't be loud just to be loud. use your voice in a purposeful way
-this is your opportunity to make your voice heard.
-Be respectful to all groups of people. I do not tolerate racism sexism homophobia transphobia etc.
-pauses and emphasis
-freytag's pyramid
-movement and blocking are important- don't just stand there
-vocal modulations
PWSH 25
Debated for 3 years, Qualed for TFA, Nats, TOC, Octos at the Melissa Kenneth Wooten Online
Preflow and flip before the round if you get time.
If you have any questions about my paradigm, please don't be reluctant to ask.
Some things I want to see:
- PLEASE extend your arguments in summary and final focus. This means you must extend your claim, warrant, and impact if you want me to vote for you on that argument.
- WEIGH. Please compare your links and impacts with the other team's arguments. If I'm buying arguments from both teams, this is where you allow me to figure out which impact is the most important.
- Defend your case in second rebuttal and every speech after that. If you don't respond to your opponent's responses in the immediate next speech, I consider those responses conceded. The only speeches where you don't have to do this are first and second constructive.
- No new arguments in summary and final. New weighing is allowed in summary.
- No new arguments or weighing in final focus.
- Pretend I know nothing about the topic. Make any argument you want to make as long as you have a comprehensive claim, warrant, and impact.
I will only vote on arguments that are made and properly warranted in the round, however obvious it may be. I will also be neutral and believe any warranted argument that you make, even if it may sound unrealistic. That being said, it's always easier to argue and harder to respond to realistic arguments.
In the end, this is your round, not mine, and you should debate the way that you're most comfortable with. Good luck!!
for the chain: arrmanloveschai@gmail.com
hi! i’m arrman (he/him). i’ve debated for the past three years as plano west LK and formerly jasper LK. qualled to gtoc and nats four times each.
please just don’t be problematic, swear it’s not that hard fr
my fav judges: katheryne dwyer, ceci granda-scott, bryce piotrowski, ilan benavi
if both teams agree, i’d love to judge a lay round, best type of debate, minimum 29.5s
a few thoughts on debate:
debating without a laptop is the only real debate. analytics are so underrated. evidence is so overrated. speed is good as long as it’s accessible. theory isn’t as much of a norm setter as people make it out to be. PLEASE paraphrase in rebuttal. don’t read pre written extensions. weighing is the most important part of a round. READ HIDDEN LINKS. k debate is wonderful below 1000ish words. tech debate can still be persuasive. please never read probability weighing, it’s always just new defense.
that is all!
substance debate, s/o will pirone:
If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.
Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm: I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.
Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.
In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.
Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.
theory, s/o ilan benavi:
I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA
If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them
*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win
Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)
Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)
Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension
Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive
k debate, s/o ceci:
I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, but not super well versed in literature. Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:
-
Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.
-
If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.
I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.
when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you misconstrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it
Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.
speaks (how to boost them):
no laptop done well - 30
no laptop done not well - 29
speed but you’re clear - good
speed but you’re unclear - 28
hidden links - YAY
lots of analytics - YAY
reading a para shell against rebuttal evidence - 27
and if there’s anything i can ever do to make debate more comfortable for you, don’t ever hesitate to lmk
- arrman
she/her
greenhill '26 - policy debater
email: smohdebate@gmail.com
please be civil and respectful and have fun!
Plano West 25' jaivalap@gmail.com
Plano West Tournament (I'm supposed to be judging NCX): Don't be nervous and try your best. I'm not very familiar with LD or CX debate, but I will try my best to flow and probably vote based off weighing.
Try to have fun during round! I will give critiques and answer any questions after disclosing at the end of the round. Just be sure to keep the debate space safe and be considerate of fellow debaters.
I agree with: Micah Mathai, Arrman Kapoor, Aaryan Tomar, Yang Bai, and Rishya Vemireddy
I disagree with: Eshaan Chachad, Anuj Lohtia, David Cui, Aayush Appan, and Advaita Ayuluri
[ plano west '26 | angelribo7@protonmail.com ]
please add greenhillld.docs@gmail.com , lcanderson.cx@gmail.com , thurealgamers37@gmail.com , baudrillard@googlegroups.com , loyoladebate47@gmail.com , harrison.debate.team@gmail.com , ernan.haruvy@mcgill.ca , ajasanideb8@gmail.com to the email chain.
mostly influenced by holden bukowsky, ryan chang, navid, dave huston, and aryan jasani. i disagree with skanda gopikannan.
"I am currently a student at Plano West Senior High" ~ [stolen from rania azizah]
read whatever you want - if in doubt, ask. best for larp, k, theory, and common phil. if you can eli5 i can judge whatever ac/nc you want me to, but i am least comfortable with really dense affs. 95% of NCs are okay.
i do enjoy aprioris, 2nrs on a skep warrant triggering permissibility, and good ncs if you're actually clashing on some level. lowkey though i don't know how skep can be offense without truth testing. please use moral uncertainty. i think there is a lot of stigma around tricks. eval after 1nc is a stupid argument; indexicals is just a clever way to make another win condition for yourself.
i flow by ear and will check docs as needed post-round so tell me if I need to flag anything. slow down for interps, spikes (especially 'hidden' ones), and advocacy texts. i will evaluate the debate after the 2ar.
i am very sympathetic to 1ars victim to 1nc trickery.
speaks boosts for really good case debating, clever wipeout scenarios, semantics-based T 2nrs, and good execution of psychoanalysis that isn't just 'agential fantasy fiat is bad oh no.' otherwise, they are mine and only i choose what to do with them.