Plano Clark Swing 2022
2022 — Plano, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I'm a parent judge, put me on the chain if you want to spread.
speaks are based on posture and clarity.
K, T, theory, and Phil still go over my head, but if you can connect the dots, I'll vote on it.
I have degrees in philosophy, but am a lay judge.
1) *If you spread, you risk losing my vote. Not just that....speak at a normal pace. Slow down. I realize this might cramp your style, but that's me. If I have an email chain doc in front of me, I can manage speed. It's just that I vastly prefer a debate spoken at normal rate of speech. It's more enjoyable, just as a meal eaten at a normal rate of speed is more enjoyable when compared to a quickly inhaled meal. If one competitor spreads and the other does not, all else being equal, that's a mark against the former competitor in my book.
2) Go easy on the debate jargon. I get the technicalities of debate, but I weigh overall persuasiveness and cogency of argument more. In other words, just because you have no dropped arguments and your opponent has one or two, or this or that argument of your opponent's is not topical, that is not automatically decisive. Remember, I'm a lay judge. Make an effort to explain it to me in a commonsense way that the average person can get, sans the jargon that those in the in crowd speak to each other.
3) Even though my background is philosophy, I do not go for theory debates high on K and academic jargon. Clarity is supreme, as is simplicity (this is different from dumbing something down and making a 'simple-minded' case.).
4) When it comes to your framework and value, I prefer you picking an actual ethical or meta-ethical system (Kantian/deontology, Utilitarian/Consequentialist, Divine Command, Aristotelian Eudaimonia, Virtue Ethics, Subjectivism, Communist, Critical Theory/Postmodernism, Egoism, Emotivism, etc etc etc), and building your case based on that, rather than sloganeering such as "my value is morality." ***Clarification: point #3 above still stands. You should make your value and framework understandable, rather than using terms only the few will be able to follow.
5) Speaking of: Clarity counts big time! Define your terms precisely, if you define your terms in a circular way (ex: "justice=acting justly."), or if you show that you lack understanding of your basic framework or criteria (ex: you reject your opponent's framework of utilitarianism, yet state your framework as "maximizing wellbeing for the most people," well, that's utilitarianism, or at least pretty close to it, which you just rejected), you have just dug yourself into a pretty big hole, one that will be mighty hard to dig out of, no matter how many arguments your opponent drops.
6) Your warrant should be quality, and you should be able to explain at length *how* your warrant supports your contention. Connect the dots for me. Don't leave me with the impression that you are setting up non sequiturs. You are the speaker, so you must do that work....don't leave it up to me to try to connect it all together. Also be able to defend why I should listen to your source. What qualifies him/her as knowledgeable?
Updated 9/20/23 for Pre-WKU
Hi everyone! I’m Holden (They/He)
Jack C. Hays '20, The University of North Texas ’23, and '25 (Go Mean Green)
If you are a senior and gradauting this year (whether you do PF, LD, or policy), UNT has a debate program! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via the email listed below and we can talk about what UNT debate can offer you. If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!
*Note for the WKU RR and tournament* Done a good amount of topic research. Don't assume my argumentative history overdetermines how I vote. 1AR's need to read more offense and go for impact turns/internal link turns. Spark is whack but also probably a core generic on this topic. K links should be more than "nuke reps bad" and answers to the K should be more than "thinking about nuclear war is good." Most of the "tricky" counterplans people run don't compete and you should think about if whatever strategy you're about to run is actually cohesive or if it is throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Policy and NFA-LD are at the Bottom
The short version:
I prefer to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" as possible, this means that I don't have an issue with the style of debate that you decide to partake in, and try to be as least dogmatic as possible. That being said, I am a human being with human feelings, and have realized that I prefer debates be centered around substance (a DA/CP combo, K, or NC) rather than have the debate devolve into nothing but theory (despite what my judging history might suggest). This is not to say that theory is not viable (barring some exceptions that are mentioned below), but rather that I always appreciate the substance level of a debate and the research that goes into that moreso than a hyper technical theory debate. Despite that, I have voted for just about every argument under the sun. Bad arguments do indeed exist, and I dislike those bad argument, but the onus is on you for being able to call out and explain why those arguments are bad.
Respect your opponents pronouns or else. I have no tolerance for individuals not taking the time to respect people's personhood. You get one chance, with your speaks being docked that one time. If you do it again after that, then my ballot is gone even if there is no argument made. With that in mind, I am also extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells.
If a round gets to the point where it is no longer healthy or safe for the debate to keep going, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know. I try my best to be cognizant but I am imperfect and may miss something, it is my job as an educator to make sure that a round and debate is as safe and accessible is possible so I take these situations very seriously.
Yes speed, but clarity is important as well
For your pref sheets:
Clash debates (k v k, k v phil, k v policy, policy v phil, etc.) – 1
K – 1
Policy – 1
Phil – 1
T/Theory – 1
Tricks – 4
Trad – 5/Strike
I’m serious about these rankings, I value execution over content. I am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.
In terms of ideology, I’m a lot like Patrick Fox just less grumpy, so you can pref me pretty closely with how you pref him.
Some individuals who have shaped how I debate/have coached me: Colin Quinn, Louie Petit, and Shawn Moore (if you know who this is then you are way too old to be debating in front of me)
Some of my former students who share the majority of my opinions/you might pref me similar to: William Walker, Anastasia Keeler, Sean Wallace, and Graham Johnstone.
Some of my friends who I agree about debate with heavily include: Dylan Jones, Luna Schultz, Elliot Cook, Avery Wilson, Joseph Wofford, and Zachary Jones.
Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate.
I flow on my laptop, I would put me at a 8-8.5/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics a little please
The long version:
Who the hell is this dude who I/my coach preffed?
Hi, I'm Holden! I did policy and LD in high school, I wasn't too involved in the national circuit but at the bid tournaments I did attend I did pretty ok. I recently graduated from the University of North Texas with degrees in philosophy and psychology. In college, I competed in NFA-LD, which is essentially just one person policy debate. I had some moderate success, I qualified to and made it to octas of the national tournaments two years in a row, and got gavels and broke at nearly every tournament I attended my senior year. Now, I am a graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I am pursuing a masters in communications and will be a graduate assistant for the debate team. I also judge and coach national circuit high school LD, where I have judged 500+ debates since 2020. In addition, I have coached students to several bids, bid rounds, speaker awards, and late elims of just about every national tournament (including elims and top speaker of the TOC).
Nowadays, most of my research is on the kritikal side of the argumentive spectrum. However, I also do research for policy style arguments on every topic I coach on, and have a secret love for cutting politics updates. With that in mind, I have cut arguments of every style and have coached students to go for arguments in all styles of debate. This includes kritikal, policy, theory heavy, tricks, and phil positions.
Please refer to me as Holden, or judge (I prefer Holden, but if you vibe with judge then by all means).I hate anything more formal than that (Mr. Bukowsky, Sir, etc.) because it makes me very uncomfortable.
Conflicts: Jack C. Hays (my alma mater). For LD I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Athenian EY, Barrington AC, Cypress Woods MM, Heritage WT, Jordan FJ, Jordan KV, Jordan VS, University Irvine RH, and Vestavia Hills EP.
I have been previously affiliated with: East Chapel Hill AX, Los Altos BF, and Unionville IQ.
What does Holden think of debate?
Debate is a game with educational implications. I love this activity very much, and take my role in it very seriously. I think it is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I am not very ideological in a way that translates to how I evaluate the debate (barring some exceptions) because it's not my place to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. That means please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability, and I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible (granted that violent or warrantless arguments are exceptions). As such, I consider there to be two concrete rules of debate - 1. I must choose a winner and a loser, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preferences I may have should not matter if you make the argument for me, if I have to default to something then that means that you did not do your job.
What does Holden like?
I like good debates. If you execute your arguments well, then I will be impressed.
I like debates that require little intervention, make my job easy for me please I hate thinking.
I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.
I like when email chains are sent out at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.
I like good case debate, this includes a deep love for impact turns.
I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this means labeling arguments (for example, giving arguments names, or doing organization like "1, 2, 3, a point, b point, c point, etc.), I can't vote for you if I don't know what the heck the complete argument is so making sure I can understand you is key
I like debaters that collapse in their final speeches, it makes nice room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.
I like it when I am given some kind of framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, impact calc, fairness v education, a meta ethic, I don't care. Just give me something to determine what the highest layer/impact should be.
To summarize the way I feel about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does a excellent job at it, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."
What does Holden dislike?
I dislike anything that is the opposite of above.
I dislike when people make problematic arguments.
I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.
I dislike unclear spreading.
I dislike messy debates with little work done to resolve them.
I dislike when people go "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."
I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, I don't care just tell me that you're taking it.
I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2023 and y'all have been using technology for how long??). If you think email chains aren't your vibe then please use a speech drop to save all of us the headache.
I dislike when people are exclusionary to novices, I am very much in the trial by fire camp but you shouldn't throw someone into a volcano. Yes, you can spread, run disads, counterplan, k's, and even phil as long as your explanations are accessible and in good faith. But theory and tricks is a no go and you WILL get your speaks tanked.
I dislike t - bare plurals.
How has Holden voted?
Across all of my time as a judge, I have judged exactly 578 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.08% of the time.
My average speaks for the 2023-2024 season have been 28.4, across my entire time judging they are at 28.505
I have been apart of 148 panels, of those I have sat exactly 17 times (Harvard was rough).
What will Holden never vote on?
Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.)
Arguments that say oppression is good.
Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.
Contrary to my reputation, I actually quite enjoy and have a good amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do quite a bit of research for policy arguments, and do topic research on that side of ground very often. I love a good disad and case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give is one on a disad and circumvention, I think it's great and really rewards good research quality
Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, I think most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about this and love when people make these arguments
Impact turn debates are some of my favorite, give me more of them please and thank you
I reward good evidence, if you cite a piece of evidence as part of your warrant for a argument and it's not good/underwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that it often acts as a tiebreaker
I really appreciate judge instruction, how should I frame a piece of evidence, what comes first, I think that telling me what to do and how to decide debates makes your life and my job much easier
I enjoy really well researched process counterplans. Absolutely makes me smile when the evidence is topic specific, and has great solvency advocates.
Yes judgekick, but make an argument for it please
Explain what the permutation looks like, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you
For affs, having well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts is much preferred than the shot gun 7 impact strategy
Explanation of the DA turning case matters a lot to me, explain it please
Say it with me everyoneHolden does not hack for theK.In fact, I think I’ve become more grouchy about k debate lately. Call me old, but I think that often times critical teams get too lost in the sauce, don’t do enough argumentative interaction, and lose the debate because they can’t keep up technically.
This is where most of my research and thoughts are these days. I will most likely be good for whatever literature base you are reading, and have a very decent amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I have most likely judged or read the literature you are going for sometime in my years in debate, so feel free to read anything, just be able to explain it.
Aff teams against the k need to go for framework and extinction outweighs more
My ideal k 1nc will have 2-3 links contextual to the aff (one of which is a topic link), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.
I have found recently that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how that interacts with the affirmative and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alt does, your chances of getting my ballot go down. I find that examples from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense you're going for in relation to the alternative/the permutation, you should also explain the perm in the first responsive speech
I've found that most k teams have become rusty at debating the impact turn (heg good/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are agaisnt the k, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above)
I would very much prefer that you introduce an interesting new argument than recycle the same aff or the same 1NC you've been running for 2 years. At least update your cards every once in a while.
Don't run a k just because you think I'll like it, bad k debates make for some of the worst speaks I've given all year (for example, if you're reading argument related to Settler Colonialism and can't name the 6 settler moves to innocence)
K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC please so they can be floating
For you nerds that wanna know, the literature bases I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-pessimism, and Settler Colonialism
The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Agamben, Abolition, Cybernetics, Queer-pessimism, Disability literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar
A note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. I think that certain authors make particular claims about the adoption of Afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this question are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you get to do whatever with the argument. If you are reading this critique as a non-black person, this becomes the round. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning.
Yes, I think these are cool, defend something and have a counter-interp that substantively does something in relation to maybe limiting the topic? I am increasingly becoming convinced that there should be some stasis for debate, I think that having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers more persuasive and makes me happier to vote for you
Presumption is underrated, most affs don't do anything and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should make sure to utilize that.
For those negating these affs, I think that the case page is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the 2NR develops a really good piece of offense from the case page then the debate becomes much easier for you to win.I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, etc. and quite enjoy judging these debates
Innovation is appreciated, I swear I've heard the same two or three affs twenty times each. If your take on a literature base is interesting, innovative, AND is something I haven't heard this year then you will most definitely get higher speaks
Performance based arguments are also acceptable/enjoyed, in the last tournament of my career I ran one of these and experienced immense success with it. However, I find that most times when they are ran the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me more leeway in terms of leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate
Framework isn't capital T true, but it also isn't an automatic act of violence. I find myself neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I do think that the resolution should be a starting point for the debate. How you interpret that is up to you
I am of the opinion that most framework debates take place on an impact level, with the internal link to those impacts most of the time never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.
I have voted on straight up impact turns before, and I have also voted on fairness as an impact, I think that the onus is on you to explain and flesh your arguments in a way that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging in the specific warrants of disads to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is often little to no engagement by either side in the debate
Counter-interps are more persuasive to me, and I think are underutilized, counter-interps that are well thought out and have good explanation of what your model of debate looks like does wonders
In terms of impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills
"Fairness is good because debate is a game and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>>>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate their arguments so hack against them," if the latter is your explanation then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose
Topicality (Theory is it’s own Monster):
I love T debates, absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. I think they've gotten a bad rep over the past four or five years because of the bare plurals stuff *shudders*, but interps that are based on words/phrases of the resolution and are gone for well will make me incredibly happy
I think that the semantics of the resolution matter, but not in a "bare plurals mean no spec" way but rather a "this is what this means in the context of the topic."
My normal defaults for these debates are:
- Competing Interps
- Drop the debater
- No RVI's
Reasonability is about your counter-interp not your aff, people need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory shells
Arbitrary counter-interps such as "your interp plus my aff" are cringe and you are better served going for a more substantive argument
Slow down for me a bit in these debates, I can flow pretty well but T is monster in terms of how many warrants/separate arguments you're spewing out so give me typing time please
You need to read voters, some standards are impacts on their own (precision comes to mind) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits is an independent impact sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad
Weigh your internal links please and thank you
I judge this type of debate a lot, and probably more than most judges. So you'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I just ask that you don't blitz through analytics and make good indepth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to the standards you're going for. I find that a well explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me be conceputally more persuaded by the impacts you go for
Conditionality is good if you win it's such. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges. If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go right ahead but just dismissing condo bad like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. To clarify, I think condo is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it better be robust if you plan on using abusing conditionality vehemently
Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:
- Shells about the appearance and clothing of another debaters
- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this
- Reading "no i meets"
- Arguments that say that implicate that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2ar arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)
Here are my defaults for counterplan theory:
- Counterplans with a solvency advocate, no matter what type they are = good
- PICs = good
- Process CP's = good
- Consult CP's = bad
- States CP's = good
- Actor/Agent CP's = good
- Object Fiat = bad
I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments that are based on intense arguments of logic. I need this explanation to be toned down so I can actually follow what’s going on, these make my head hurt and I did not pay enough attention in my logic class to know/understand exactly what you're talking about.
I think that my thoughts about this are "please don't if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate you can go ham"
I can judge these debates, and have coached debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not. I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again with little to no innovation. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1NC don't expect me to be happy about the debate. Carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am"
Slow down on your long underviews, yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Go at like 70% your normal speed in these situations
Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether or not I feel like evaluating them. This extends to disclosure practices.
Tricks versus identity-based affirmatives is violent, and bad. Stop it.
I love these debates! I find phil a really interesting part of debate that often goes unexplored. That being said, I prefer well developed syllogisms with pieces of evidence over analytical dumps, I find that analytical syllogisms are often spammy with extremely underdeveloped warrants.
Parts of your syllogisms should at least hint at what their impact is. I think that this becomes even more essential in later speeches where you should collapse and impact 1-2 justifications along with weighing
In phil v phil debates, both sides need to be able to explain their ethic more. These debates can either be super informational, or super messy, and I would prefer that they be the former rather than the latter. Explanation, clear engagement, and weighing is the way to my ballot in these debates
Hijacks are great! Just explain them well since they're often pretty complicated and I can't really understand the warrant if it's less than 10 seconds long
Please slow down a bit in these debates, they ore often very fast, technical, and blippy and I can only flow so fast
For those that are wondering, here are the literature bases I know pretty well: Locke, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Kant, Deleuze, Hume, Descartes, Nietzsche, Berkeley, Leibniz, and Spinoza
I know these literature bases somewhat: Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Moral Particularism, and Constitutionality
I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with deleuze ethical frameworks, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe a moral claim but makes a structural one which means that it doesn't make too much logical sense to force the literature to make an ethical claim.
- Comparative worlds > truth testing
- Permissibility negates > affirms
- Presumption negates > affirms
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
Since these are becoming increasingly read in front of me, and are becoming a separate argument in debate, I thought they deserved their own section. I think that these are good arguments when executed well. That being said, I think that for these to be won, you need to win either some meta level framing (such as accessibility first) or linking it to an ethical framework. I often have to ask myself “should I abandon the flow if I think that this is violent” and here is the litmus test for how I will determine to abandon the flow, I will:
1. See if you won the flow proper to see if I can avoid intervening
2. If you did not win the flow proper, I will see if the action in question is a legitimate question of violence in the debate space, your explanation may help, your explanation may not. As much as your 2AR ethos may be good, if I do not think that this situation is an act of violence with reasonable malicious intent, then I will not abandon the flow. A few instances in which I will abandon the flow can be: misgendering, dead-naming, some sort of maliciously intended argument meant to exclude individuals from debate
This is not to say I won’t abandon the flow, but I feel like there has to be some outline for how I can reconcile this, or else this would justify me becoming increasingly interventionist for littler reasons which I think is a horrible model of debate.
Yes, I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often time find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my opinion go right ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time, it will be in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, both for your sake and mine.
I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.
Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says
For the policy kids-
I am a LD judge most of the time, but I have extensive experience in policy (did it in high school, and have judged more policy rounds in the past year). Most of my takes about debate can be summarized above.
My takes on framework are much more neutral than my competitive history suggests, this is because I have found that the impact explanations in policy make much more sense. The best way to overcome this is by doing robust impact calculus by both sides of the flow.
For framework teams, I have found that directly implicating the argument you are making in context of the affirmatives offense helps me a lot in reconciling these debates, as there are often several floating arguments that I think lack judge instruction. Generally more convinced by clash, but fairness is also an option.
For critical affirmative teams, I think having at least some counter-interp, and then robust contextualization of your offense in the context of the negative's interp helps a lot.
I'm better for policy throwdowns than I once thought, but still need a bit of hand holding. Link contextualization, turns case/turns the DA arguments are incredibly important for me, especially when I am told of how to understand that in the scheme of the rest of the debate
I love impact turns, please go for them.
Also neutral on questions such as condo, if you win it you win it, being dogmatic on these questions are bad takes.
- Sign post please
- Weighing early is how you get my ballot (best case scenario is starting in the 2AC)
- Yes open cross
If you want a pref sheet rankings, here they are:
1 - Clash debates, k v k debates
2 - In depth DA/CP debates
For the NFA-LD kids:
Everything above applies
Don't think I'm a k hack, my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. If you are not comfortable going for the k then please don't unless you absolutely want to, don't adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar
"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then at best it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges
Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good/heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues"
Condo is bad if you win that it is bad, it is good if you win it is good
An addendum to how I dish out my speaks, any additional speaker points you get via my challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to earn/work for
Speaker points challenges (things to maintain my vtl during tournaments):
- Send a picture of your pet (not snakes please I have a phobia of them) in the doc or email chain +.3
- Bringing me a diet or zero version of coke, pepsi, or dr. pepper will result +.5 (will exceed the 29.7 threshold if my exhaustion and delirium is enough). If both debaters do it then the points go to both of y'all.
- Pepsi challenge jokes (making sense to the debate and actually related to the content) +.1
Things I will be more apt to maybe slightly inflate your speaks for:
- Being generally pleasant (not in the "hi how are you judge" kind of way but being vibey I guess)
- Making actually funny jokes
Across over 200+ prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.5 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy
A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges
I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below
They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -
29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament
29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims
28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least
28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool
27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on
27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on
Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it
Random Sliding Scales that I think are Fun (Stolen from Patrick Fox)
Voting for policy----X----Voting for the K
Researching/coaching policy-------X---Researching/coaching the K
Good evidence-X---------Bad evidence + spin
Will read ev without being told------X----Tell me what to read
Asking "did you read X card"-------X--- Learn to flow or run prep/CX for this
Yes RVIs-------X---No RVIs
Fairness is definitely an impact-----X-----Fairness is definitely not an impact
Alternatives/K affs should solve things or lose--X--------Alternatives/K affs can not solve things and not lose
"It's pre-fiat"--------X--Actual arguments that mean things
Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the activity)
Debate good-------X---Debate bad (the community)
Creative, alternative models of the topic + offense---X-------Impact turn everything vs framework
Yes ur Baudrillard/Kant-X---------Not ur Baudrillard/Kant
Feelings and jokes--X--------Debate robots
Mime-like expressiveness---X-------Statue-like poker face
Assume I understand the things--------X--Assume I do not understand the things
Speaker point fairy------X----Speaker point goblin
LD should be like policy-------X---(Some) LD stuff is cool
Capitalism----------X( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Head coach at Plano East Senior High.
I enjoy judging IEs most.
In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.
-I do not like Kritiks; they are generic and lazy debating - I will not vote for them. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem.
-On case attacks are important!
-Theory & CPs good.
-Do not read at me while giving voters.
-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.
-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.
In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.
In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit. I have a lot less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge.
In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible.
Include me in on email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
I look forward to hearing you speak!
Background/experience: I debated for 3 years at Montgomery Texas High school competing two years in policy and one year in LD.
ALSO I PREFER TO DO A SPEECH DROP INSTEAD OF A EMAIL CHAIN. HOPE THATS COOL
***** : if you are flight two can you please try to have your pre flows and email chains ready to go before the round.
General Paradigm: I really think debate has become an activity involving strategy over anything else in policy and ld especially. Therefore, I will tend to be more perceptive to strategy over grandstanding on your critiques. Additionally, I felt like during my career that judges tended to put their own personal beliefs about debate and the issues being debated on a pedastool making them biased toward certain arguments like Ks over theory or theory over Ks. My goal is to be a complete blank slate as far as that goes. I believe things like frivolous theory can be a strategy even though some judges are biased against it. That's not to say I'm a theory hack because I'm probably the opposite, but I am receptive to it just as I am to a DA or K. Also don't say racist stuff or I probably won't like you.
REPS: i personally hate voting on these types of arguments. If your opponent was blatantly offensive that is different . However, if i had to make a intrapersonal decision about the moral character of a debater I would prefer not to.
I will say clear twice, then deduct speaks. If you are clear, then the main thing that I use to evaluate them is strategy. I will also adjust my speaks depending on the caliber of tournament. I will give a regular debater around a 28.8, a poor debater 28.5 and a good debater 29
My goal is to be the most tab judge you have ever had, so read anything you want, be strategic, and have fun.
Email me at email@example.com if you have any questions or for the email chain.
I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.
Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.
Speed is fine.
You must be clear and articulate.
Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.
Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.
Have Fun :)
LD: I look at the debate from a traditional lense. Value/Criterion -> link to your Contentions. I'm expecting clash throughout. You may read fast (but not too fast) you should enunciate. Voting blocks at the end help summarize the debate and that's my preference to hear in the final ARs. Unlikely to weigh counter-plans. LD is a value style of debate. Resolution is absolute unless specified. I'm very tabula rasa with 99% of arguments. However, if it's something completely off the wall I'm not going to weigh it. However, it's your opponent's job to still attack that specific argument (if it has some miniscule form of credence). You don't need to spend much time dismissing it in your rebuttals if it's non-sensical. No K's, Theories, Piks, other random things.
I want to see a Value and a Criterion. Both, that's TWO. What do you value, how do you get there (criterion).
PFD: Traditional lense. Clash is expected. Summarize key voting issues. The debate should center around the topic. Whoever can display their case is stronger than their opponents (makes more sense logically, with impacts) wins the debate.
Another thing; Let's say your opponent failed to attack your case in any of those speaking blocks where they must do so. In your next speech just go ahead and say that and save us all all this time so we can move on with our lives. No need to continue droning onward if your opponent just literally dropped the entire round unbeknownst to themselves. I wouldn't put this here if it didn't happen before.
Outside of the above you should be using all your time. I'm sure there's something either A.) You missed or B.) You can add some analytical analysis of something throughout the round.
Also, let's not make it awkward after the round. If you want an RFD then just ask.
I am an assistant debate coach. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.
I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.
I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.
Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.
Kritiks are fine
Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.
I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.
If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.
Full disclosure: I love good T debates.
The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.
Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.
I want the violation to be as specific as possible.
Standards and voters are essential.
All other arguments
Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.
I don't flow it, but I pay attention.
If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.
Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.
Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!
Clear voters and impact calculations & be nice.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.
Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!
Hello. I am a lay judge, so just make sure to speak clearly and enunciate. I want you to lay out your arguments and weigh all of the impacts for me, I don't want to make decisions completely based on my own thoughts.
College: UT Tyler 21-Present
High School: Lindale 17-21
General philosophy: Feel free to read whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for critical arguments almost every debate my senior year, but the previous three years I spent reading exclusively policy arguments and I read a mix of the two in college. You know what is and is not appropriate to say within rounds and if you don't adhere to that, your points and ballot will reflect it. If you have any questions about your argument and whether or not I'd be receptive to it, it's better to ask than be bothered by my ballot.
If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.
Tech>truth. A dropped argument isn't assumed true without an extended and weighable warrant.
Depth>breadth. I'm not the best judge for more than 6 or 7 off, but if you feel like you need 13 pages to win a debate, I'll just be sad.
I prefer you to not read 30 cards in a speech. Evidence quality is really important and if you throw that out of the window just to throw the other team off, your speaks will reflect it. Comparing evidence quality is a great way to turn the tide in your favor in debates in front of me, as I will do my absolute best to evaluate only what was said in the round.
If it gives you better context, the most influential people to how I view debate are Cody Gustafson, Quaram Robinson, Yao Yao Chen and Nico Juarez.
-Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is.
-Zero risk is possible
-Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs
-This is one place I am very up for a theory debate, whack counterplans that wipe out much of the aff lit base are probably bad for everyone, but the amount of times I've gone for counterplans that definitely cheat on some level puts me in the middle here.
-Doesn't really bother me if they're specific or not, but even if you don't have specific cards you should be able to explain why the counterplan solves the specific harms of the aff with a risk of a net benefit
-Generally for judge-kick, you just need to actually say it. This doesn't mean I can't be dissuaded by the other team in the final speech though.
-Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates.
-Framework isn't as important to win on negative in a lot of these debates, but if winning a research method through framework is what your critique is all about, of course you must win it.
-Most familiar with critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism and various areas of literature involving anti-blackness. Have read a bit of PoMo, but it is probably the argument you will need to spend the most time explaining. Regardless of my familiarity with your argument, you should be doing the work as if I've never heard your argument before.
-Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are really important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to get better speaks. The inverse is true as well.
-Impact and alt debates are often very muddy. Explaining your impact in a way that it can result from the links and be resolved by the alternative is something that is important. Alt explanation doesn't have to be hard, you just need to do it. History is your greatest resource in these debates, don't forget about it. Examples and explanations are great ways not just to get better speaks, but to win my ballot.
-Do your thing here and go for the impacts you are most comfortable going for. These debates often get lost in the internal links and fall short in the impact debate, be very careful there.
-Topical versions are important, but you need to make inroads outside of them to implicate why they're important within the debate. Don't just shallowly extend it or acknowledge it and move on, these can shred most of your offense on either side, but are very important to win when aff.
-Impact turns and impact defense are important here, but fleshing these arguments out is something a lot of teams don't do.
-I have a higher threshold for voting for this against policy affs, some of these T interps are getting out of hand. That being said, T and advantage counterplans were my favorite arguments to go for, so feel free to read it if you think you can win it. Sometimes you might need to take these debates a little more slowly, it will benefit my comprehension given there are generally fewer pieces of evidence in these debates.
-Having good definitions (that define words in the resolution) is important.
-Please don't refer to a sheet by the authors name, instead refer to it by the word/phrase that the author intends to define.
-Please no tricks, they're bad for everyone
-Reasons to reject require warrants and weighable impacts
-Counterplan theory is probably a good idea, look above.
-IVIs/RVIs are cool, but not every sheet is an IVI. For example, if the negative reads a topicality shell in the 1NC and then choose not to go for it, that isn't a reason to vote affirmative.
Director of Debate – Greenhill School
Coach USA Debate Team
Owner Global Debate Symposium - https://www.gdsdebate.com/
Updated – April 2022
Please put me on the email chain – email@example.com
Contact me with questions.
Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene. I WILL do my best to be an objective evaluator of your arguments but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is just not true (nor do it is true for anyone).
I have coached National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these format’s week in and week out.
General thoughts on how I decide debates:
1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.
2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.
3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.
4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.
5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.
6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.
7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence post the debate that was not done by the students.
8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.
9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparison between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.
10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.
I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.
A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:
Topicality vs Conventional Affs:
Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters that can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support that why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.
Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:
First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).
Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested. The deference for going for topicality/FW versus “k affs’ can be strategic and the best option. Many times, the reality is that many teams not researching to contest the foundational premises of the other side.
Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.
Counterplans and Disads:
Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise to respond to these arguments.
Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.
I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.
Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off case arguments
Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.
I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.
I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.
I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.
Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).
It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.
Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.
Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.
Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)
Yes. Countless times.
What does chairing a round involve? (required)
How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?
World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POI’s) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)
I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.
The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)
Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.
World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?
World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.
How do you resolve model quibbles?
Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.
i will listen to any argument as long as the warrants makes sense. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on extinction scenarios, doesn’t mean I won’t, but your link chain has to be solid.
Non topical stuff needs to show me why giving you the ballot outweighs topical debates.
Not very receptive to shady theory. I want a reasonable argument indicating abusiveness.
I vote on arguments made in a voters section. These arguments must be substantiated throughout the debate. But I don’t want to intervene so it’s your job to write my RFD.
i want to be on the email chain but I find speech drop works best.
I don’t time. Time each other. Don’t be rude, keep it professional and avoid any personal attacks. Kindness will be rewarded in speaks.
if you plan on running anything different might double check before the round that I’m okay with it. I listen to most stuff. I love K debates over super policy rounds. I find debates that collapse to topicality and theory very boring, if the round necessitates such arguments I understand but I’d rather your strategy make sense to the context of the round.
Always send a marked version of the doc if you end up going off schedule and be clear when you’re reading anything not on the doc. I flow off the doc, I still want to understand you when you’re speaking so don’t abuse the fact that I flow off the dock and read so fast you’re incomprehensible.
30-29: Expect to see you in out rounds. Amazing well thought out strategy. Clear arguments.
29-28: Few logical inconsistencies, good strategy and good overall performance.
28-27: Confusing at times and suspect strategy. Made the round unclear.
27-26: Mostly unclear. Strategy is poorly planned.
26-25: Non responsive and no viable strategy.
25-20: Reprehensible behavior.
I am not a fan of spreading...if I can't understand you how can I make an informed decision on your position? If you are for or against the status quo then state that and be convincing and compelling. Don't forget the importance of definitions but just because the other side concedes to your definitions don't assume that is enough to win the round.
Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and an impact.
Tell me what you want me to vote on...give me a road map and sign post along the way. I am a fan of impacts and if you see a turn...go for it with all you have.
PF- has the feel of a "town" meeting so your argument should kept simple..not to the point of being insulting. In this case...be sure you are factual/truthful with "commonly" known information. I am an educated, tax paying, home owning person.
I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you that any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA (you get the jist) I have a zero tolerance policy for...let's not test me on this issue please...I'd like to keep my hopes that we will continue to evolve into a society that is tolerant of how everyone wants to live their lives.
Congress: I am looking for full participation in the round. I am watching to see how active you are in questioning. I want to hear you give your argument for or against that is compelling and not a rehash of what's already been said throughout the round. I do not like watching speaks being given for the sake of giving a speech when we've already heard the same point stated in 3 previous speeches. Be clever and when you give your speech...I am stoked when you point out something said by the opposing side previously stated.