Lake Travis Cavalier Classic TFA
2025 — Lake Travis, TX/US
Congressional Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a third-year debate coach and consider myself a learner in all aspects of debate. I prefer to judge holistically, giving an overview of each segment of the speech/debate. I try to give thorough feedback, and I prefer a speed of 7 (on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the fastest).
Overall look-fors:
- Clarity in speaking: enunciation, pronunciation, prosody, volume and intonation.
- Delivery: do you have conviction behind your delivery? Do you give the energy that you BELIEVE your evidence is stronger and overall claims prove or disprove the topic/resolution? Also, high-level words - if you can't say them properly, find a synonym or learn to say it. I won't vote on this, but it's very off-putting and it seems as if you don't know your case in most instances. Practice your cards and speeches and verify your pronunciation.
- Signposting: I need to know where you are in your speech. Please signpost.
- Behavior: do you allow your opponent to answer the question? Do you manage control over questioning if the opp goes down an unrelated rabbit hole, or doesn't answer the question? Are you speaking over the opp and no clash can occur?
- Clash: how do you attack the arguments in CX? How does your evidence negate or even prove their argument invalid
- Credibility: is your evidence PROPERLY cited (based on the type of debate, this varies)? Are you using up-to-date and relevant sources? Are the sources themselves credible or are they known for common bias?
Specifics to styles:
- Congress: Do you attack the bill? Are you referring to opponent evidence to support or negate it during your speech? Are you maintaining control when being questioned? Are you asking questions that extend arguments?
- CX: Are you properly addressing the HITSS segments? Are you using evidence that breaks down the opps case?
- LD: What's your value and how do your arguments circle back to it? The value needs to be addressed throughout the debate, as it is the foundation of why the resolution should pass or fail.
- Speech: Do you have three clear claims with at least two strong pieces of evidence, cited correctly? Are you following a CER style of construction? How confident are you in your delivery? Are you using a notecard, and if so, is it reading verbatim from the card or is it only for talking points and evidence?
Evidence Ethics:
I am adding this to the top because it has had an effect on some of my students recently. I generally follow along on speech docs when they are sent to me. If I notice during the round that you are reading a card that is egregiously misrepresenting what the evidence actually says, I will stop the round and give you an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I am allowed to give. This doesn't apply to things that are simply "power-tagged." I am talking about evidence that has like 10 words highlighted to make a claim or argument not intended by the author. I don't judge PF that much, so this probably won't be an issue in whatever round I am judging you in, but be forewarned.
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 (impactturn@gmail.com).
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
Observations for all debate events:
-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.
Speech: I have judged a lot more speech over the past couple years. I like students to demonstrate a personal connection to their topic or material.
I am a coach and teach my kids the traditional formats of speech and debate for all events.
Congress: I am looking for an AGD and proper sign posting in the introduction. I want to see evidence for each point and clash unless you are the first speaker. I don't want to see you bring up a laptop. You should use a paper tablet. Make sure you leave time for a short conclusion. Make sure your pacing and verbiage are in a conversational manner. Answering questions are just as important, make sure you know the topic thoroughly. Activity in the chamber is also important, especially when I'm trying to break ties in my mind. Make sure your questions are well thought out before asking.
Lincoln-Douglas: As stated above, I teach the traditional format for LD Debate. I expect value, value criterion, contentions, warrants, and impacts. If you were taught policy jargon, make sure and convert it to LD Debate format. I do not want spreading. Make good sound arguments. The person who upholds their framework will win the round.
Public Forum: As stated, I am a teacher/coach and I teach and expect traditional form of debate. PF is intended for anyone to be able to judge, therefore, use evidence for your facts and provided impacts to your points. There should be no policy/LD jargon in PF debate. There should be NO spreading in PF debate.
Speaking Events: I am much better at judging Extemp, Original Oratory, and Informative speaking events over the interp events. However, I have judged all interp events at local, state, and national levels.
For IEs
Be original. I don't knit-pick the standardized norms that have become commonplace, and I'd rather have a fresh experience that is true to you as a speaker.
Blocking is effective when done well. Movement should have purpose but feel natural.
Tone - I'm not going to like you more if you use the "news reporter" tone. Understand your audience and speak to us.
Gravity - particularly for DI, but also in Extemp, have some appreciation for the gravity of the subject matter. If you choose to portray a world-shattering tragic event, your world should be shattered. In extemp, if you're going to use a heavy subject for your AGD, be respectful of that.
Character deviation - Maybe a bit more important for me than others...it's hard to buy in to the story if characters don't have extremely clear distinction, so I place extra significance here.
Facts - for Extemp, I keep up with the news and coach debate. Know your stuff. It's not a deal-breaker to be wrong on fundamentals, but it certainly doesn't help. I'm always going to evaluate both performance of speech and quality of information, so make sure you're solid on both fronts. It'll definitely hurt you to try and sell me a blatant lie.
Time signaling must be requested. I'm happy to accomodate, but my default setting is to let you do your thing. If you want a verbal stop to make sure you don't go past grace, just ask.
All-in-all, give me an honest performance that lets met escape reality for 7-10 minutes. I'm not going to look for a million technical elements. I'm going to listen to my gut.