Pine Tree UIL Academic A Invitational
2023 — Longview, TX/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.
Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.
Last, I WILL NOT INTEREST. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.
Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...
(I,E UIL.TFA/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)
I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.
Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.
I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief.
Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!
When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.
I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.
1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.
2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches
3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber
I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.
The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?
My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!
These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!
I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. The following is personal preference, but one thing that irks me as a judge is teams that kick arguments that they are winning or that there is good debate on, only kick arguments if you're absolutely sure the argument will have no impact on the round at all. Also, when you kick an argument, please be explicit about kicking the argument and don't "silent kick" an argument.
Style and Delivery Preferences:
I want to be able to understand every word you say. I will award higher speaker points to debaters that speak the most fluently, with the fewest mistakes, as long as I understand them.
When judging CX I prefer a stock issue style debate but I am open to any argument. As long as you make your case I will flow it and make my decision on which team makes the better case and arguments overall. I do vote on Topicality but it's got to be a clear violation and you must win the "better definition" debate. I will also listen to K's and CP's that are ran correctly. At the end of the day which case makes the greatest REAL WORLD impact should win.
LD I prefer a Value debate over framework. Neg side should clash with Aff so if you are trying to argue a different format than aff it is like two ships passing in the night. LD by design is a debate over morals and philosophy (what is better for society) but again I will listen to any well structured argument.
Extemp Make me laugh, use crediable sources and only walk if you know how to do it. Don't let the walk mess up your speech. I want the sources but I am more intersted in your analsis of the topic.
Spreading: If you spread and it is clear good for you but I will always believe in quality over quanity. If we can not understand your arguments are you really getting to the essence of SPEECH and debate? In person if i visablly drop my pen I am no longer flowing your speech, online I will simply say clear, please adjust.
Howdy, I am Robert Early with ATLAS Debate Resources. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for four years and worked with various Cross-Examination debaters for three years. Here is what I look for in each respective competition:
I am a standard stock issues judge, and I highly value impact calculus. I vote on what is brought up in the round, not what I have to fight to understand. What I mean by that is that I will not vote on an issue if it isn't addressed. For example, if the affirmative loses inherency due to a drop, I will not vote for the negative if the negative does not clearly point out the drop and why it is important. In addition, I believe cross-examination debate, like all debates, is designed to prepare your ability to hold your own, and win, debates in the real world. This means I do not care for speeches that are filled with debate-only jargon that people outside of the debate world wouldn't understand. If you use debate terms, make sure to explain what they mean before shoving them down my throat. It is good practice and will help you for the rest of your life. I also believe that cross-examination debate's first priority is education, and that is why I do not care for kritiks. You enter the round with the expectation to learn more about the resolution, not why the resolution isn't important. Finally, while I have no issue with an elevated pace compared to Lincoln-Douglas, if you go so fast or are so unclear I can't understand you then I won't flow it.
I am a very traditional judge when it comes to Lincoln-Douglas debate, and I vote on the side that best achieves their burden. What I mean by that is I will vote for the affirmative if they can successfully uphold the burden of proof, or proving the resolution, phrased as a statement, is correct as written. On the flip side, I will vote for the negative if they can successfully achieve the burden of clash, or disproving the resolution as true by negating the affirmative's burden of proof. I can always explain more in room during oral critiques if curious. In addition, I do not adhere to the philosophy that Lincoln-Douglas debate is "a moral debate" compared to cross-examination debate's "evidence-based debate". Hard evidence is just as crucial in Lincoln-Douglas debate as it is cross-examination debate. The only difference is that in Lincoln-Douglas debate your impacts can be attitudinal, ethical, or philosophical instead of cross-examination's near complete limit on statistical. However, if you are making a claim that requires hard-evidence, such as if you claim that crime is lowered by decreases in personal privacy I will need real evidence, not theoretical concepts, to vote in your favor. Finally, I put a much higher value on speaking capabilities in Lincoln-Douglas debate than I do cross-examination debate. I will not accept spreading and, in the case of two near equal achievements of respective burdens, I will vote on speaker capabilities.
I am a tab judge. I let the debaters frame the round. I will default stocks if the debaters do not frame the round another way.
I do not like Ks, but I will flow them. They must be run to perfection for me to vote on them.
I have no problem with new in the 2.
I can flow pretty fast, but if you are talking so fast you can't breathe then I can't flow it.
For CX and LD:
I am primarily Stock and Policy. I.e. Framework, evidence, why this outweighs, etc. I'm not a big fan of Kritics. Give Voters!!
Seating isn't too important, but I prefer Aff on my Left, Neg on my Right.
Speed-reading is okay as long as it isn't 1000wpm.
You can keep your own time if you'd like, but I will be timing as well. My timer begins on your first word. For Prep Time, I will give 30 second intervals. Be sure to tell me to "cease prep time," otherwise it will continue to run.
Please ask "Judge ready?" before you start, I may still be writing or getting my timer ready.
Framework/going down the flow is important. If you jump back and forth from On/Off case, I may get lost and mistake your attacks for your defense and vice versa.
Off-time roadmaps are preferred, but not necessary.
I'm not great at disclosures, but everything will be on the ballot and hopefully helpful to your learning experience.
One person in the room at a time. Hand me your topic when you're ready.
The timer begins at your first word. Starting from 7m, I will hand-sign 6m-1m, give 30 seconds (horizontal, extended index finger), 15 seconds (half, horizontal, index finger), then hand-sign again from 5s-1s. For practice tournaments, a 10 second grace period past 7 minutes will be given, but it will still affect your score. I apologize ahead of time if I'm too engrossed in writing that I forget to hand-sign.
I would consider myself a fairly TAB judge. I'm usually pretty go with the flow... (haha see what I did there) :) But if you have any questions about my paradigm in specific, then feel free to ask. I don't tolerate any blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any bigotry in my rounds (I will vote you down). Make sure everyone carries themselves in an ethical manner and is respectful of each other in the round. Debate is about communication and education so make sure you can articulate every part of the case and you understand what you're talking about. I don't flow CX so don't make arguments to me during the cross period because I will not write it down. I'm good with spreading but would prefer a copy of the document if you do so.
2022-23 Policy Topic
I wouldn't consider myself the most educated on this topic, however, that doesn't mean I'm uncomfortable with kritikal language in the debate space. Make sure you communicate every part of every argument, signposting is a great skill to have!
- Topicality/Theory: I rate theory and topicality pretty high on my flow unless the debaters communicate how and why I shouldn't. If you don't read all parts to a T-shell that includes (The definition, the violation, and standards and voters) then I won't consider it a real argument. Please don't be abusive and not read standards and voters in the initial shell, I'll consider and half-made argument. But you're more than welcome to expand on them in any speech.
- DA's/ADV's: I rate these arguments pretty high as well. Make sure they have all the components to them. Framing can heavily affect how I weigh these arguments so make sure you can articulate why the impacts of your advantages and disadvantages outweigh.
- CP's/Kritiks: I rate these arguments as high as any other. Make sure you can weigh the counter advocacy/alternative against the plan. Framing is a key player here for me so make sure both sides of the debate give be a ROB: Roll of the ballot and a framing mechanism to weigh the aff vs. neg.
- Framing: I'm cool with all framing, but don't just run util good and not explain how it adds to the debate space. UTIL is my least favorite framing so make sure you have a lot in terms of explanation on the flow for reasoning as to why I should vote for it. Anyways make sure you're framing adds to the debate and doesn't just take up time especially if you and your opponent agree on how the round should be framed.
Hello! My name is Thomas Thompson but you can call me Tommy if you would like.
As a judge I don't just want to tell you what's wrong, I also want to tell you how to improve as a debater. I've put my email in my paradigm because I feel passionate about debate and want it to grow for generations to come. Don't be afraid to send me a message and ask questions! I want to help you as much as I can.
I have competed in LD, CX, BQ, Extempt, and Congress.
I've also qualified for the National Tournament in International Exempt, and Congress, the UIL State tournament for Policy (2x) and Congress, as well as TFA State in Policy.
Two things I do not tolerate across the board are racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or any other discriminatory language or action in the round. I also do not suggest giving up during a round/forfeiting. I've judged so many rounds where teams believe they've already lost and just give up hope, even though they could have come back and won the round with just a little extra work.
THIS ASIDE! I will not, and should not have to tell you what to do in the round. I will listen to anything, however, this does not mean I won't consider a truly bad argument as bad. It is up to the opposing team to tell me that the argument is bad, and not just assume I already understand that. Tell me explicitly.
I love LD debate for its philosophical aspect. I'll vote for whoever is the best debater in the round. I'm not doing the work of deciding a winner for you. That's your job as a competitor.
I enjoy impact calculus and voters during a round.
Kritiks- I'm fine with k debate. I don't have a full lexicon of all the languages but I am very familiar with many. Still, ask me before the round.
Spreading is fine but if it's just gibberish I will not flow it. Make sure to signpost.
Do whatever you want. I'll vote on anything if you keep up with it through the round and prove the point best.
K- I enjoy K debate, I myself enjoy running kritiks.
I enjoy and actually would prefer to hear impact calculus and voters in policy. Not required but highly recommended.
Spreading is absolutely fine but again if it's gibberish I will not flow it. Make sure to signpost.