Carroll HS TFA Winter Classic
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
- Debated on the local, state, and national circuit
- I'm fine w speed but slow down on interps and analytics
- Default to comparative worlds over truth testing.
This is what I'm most familiar with. I have read counterplans, disads, PICs, etc. and am comfortable voting for any of them. In these debates, clear weighing between impacts and strong evidence comparison are what are most likely to win my ballot.
A good Kritik has three things in my opinion: a framing argument/ROB that frames why I should prioritize the impacts of the Kritik, link specific to the plan, and an alternative that I can easily understand and that actually does something. I primarily went for the cap K, and soft left affirmatives from time to time, but am comfortable evaluating most Ks, unless they involve high theory. However, I will have a high brightline for the explanation of the K.
Prob won't vote on dumb theory arguments but comfortable evaluating t debates. I think 2 condo is fine but ill vote on the theory argument. above 3 condo, I'll prob err aff. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI’s. If shell is frivolous, I'll lean other way.
I went for phil sometimes in highschool, and I think phil debates are actually fun. However, I prefer phil arguments will a few well explained and carded warrants rather than a bunch of blippy warrants.
I have a very high threshold for voting on these.
Background (Updated For 2023-2024 Season)
I am a current Freshman at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program. I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.
*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (K debater things) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.
Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Carnegie Vanguard KF; Dulles HS; Garland HS LA
TLDR: What I don't like
1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle
2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.
3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that
TLDR: What I Like/Can Evaluate Better (Prefs)
K (T or Non-T) -1
Phil (High Phil is more of a 3)-2-3
LD & CX Specific
DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)
This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:
[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are the aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote
[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address
[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.
[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything
I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.
Kritiks & TFW/Topicality
K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean
K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L
Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.
Tricks (LD Specific)
I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.
I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it. If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH
Speaker Points will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.
I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.
Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571
Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)
World Schools Specific
A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens
B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs
C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.
Public Forum Specific
Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.
If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.
If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.
Speaking Events (Specific)
Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.
*You can refer to me as judge, Alexis, ma'am, whatever that matches my pronouns is cool with me, but nothing else otherwise your speaker points will be erased. The same goes with misgendering and/or deadnaming your opponent. If it is happens more than once you will lose the round. You probably won't make the mistake again.*
Conflicts: Prosper HS, Aubrey HS
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (this is the only email that should be put on the email chain. I don't care if you have another previous email of mine send the doc to this one.)
Graduated from Prosper High School in 2019 (I did LD for four years, did PF once, and did extemp throughout the four years occasionally.) I debated on the national circuit, TFA, NSDA, and UIL. I was a student at the University of North Texas from fall 2019 to spring 2020 and now I'm attending the University of Texas at Austin since fall 2020.
I mostly went for ks, particularly regarding post-modernism, post-structuralism, anarchism, security/militarism, and reps, but I also really like good case debate and phil/framework.
TFA State 2022 Update:
-I really do not wanna hear a ton of T and Theory rounds
-This topic sucks so make sure to delineate between aff and neg offense/ground
-If you read an independent voter I expect it to follow the actual structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact), it should hopefully be carded but it's not the end of the world, and it should have a clear and articulated terminal impact that is weighed and framed in terms of how it interacts with the other higher level arguments of the round. If its like 10 or 20 seconds long I will not vote on it.
A few important things:
-If you're familiar with Blake Andrews' paradigm that's probably quite a similar way in which I view debate (given that he was my coach).
-Give me a clear framework to evaluate the round under, the warranted offense you have to leverage under it, and weigh your offense against your opponent.
I don't mind stock debate whatsoever and if that's what you're best at go for it. I think you should generally debate in the way you find most effective, but make your arguments clear and understand them well. I find that much more respectable than running arguments you aren't familiar with.
I'm inclined to err on reasonability. If there isn't any real abuse going on in the round I probably won't vote on theory.
If I think you're being toxic, offensive, or anything else related to this then your speaks will drop and you could lose the round for it as well. I've done it before and I'll do it again.
I am NOT the judge for intense theory debates. This means if you go for it I'll do my best to give a good adjudication, but don't be surprised if it's not explained incredibly.
I won't vote on arguments I deem offensive, which is like most judges, however, I also don't vote on arguments I deem unethical (the following args are not auto-losses, but I won't evaluate them):
1. U.S. Heg Good (comparative hegemony/bipolarity is somewhat okay, but explicit u.s. exceptionalism is not)
2. Cap Good
4. Libertarian Ideology
5. Edelman or any combination of queerness with some self-violence, ex: queer bomb. I will simply not flow the argument.
If you're going to try to defend something like capitalism or NATO in front of me then you should probably do stuff like prove transition wars would be worse, under current circumstances its not possible to transition from capitalism, etc.
Also, I'm not the fastest judge when it comes to flowing, i.e. don't go full speed. If I had to quantify it maybe my speed is a 7.5/10. I'll say clear 3 times if you're too fast or unclear, after that I'll stop flowing your arguments until you decide to clear up. This will affect your speaks.
Extra Things I Like:
-Impact Turns: I think these are underutilized in debate, but keep in mind I don't mean impact turning racism bad and that sorta thing. Someone please read dedev
-Concise crystallization and voters
-Kind and wholesome humor that isn't snarky
-Tell me when to clearly switch to a new flow for overviews/counter-interps.
Extra Things I Don't Like:
-Recycled strategies and frameworks
-Rudeness or hostility. Here, I reserve the right to drop you or tank speaks as I see fit. This also applies to very rude or overly-critical post-rounding.
-Not a fan of blippy arguments and spikes
-When debaters who are objectively more experienced and skilled go overkill on their opponent. You can clearly win a round, but be easy and constructive.
-Frivolous/Time Suck Theory Strats (I won't down you for it. but I'm not gonna be thrilled and your speaks will reflect this.)
A lot of my views are pretty similar as LD generally. It comes down to a basic offense/defense paradigm and I'm more likely to default policymaker. I also tend to lean more towards competing interps.
I view PF through an offense/defense paradigm as well. I don't judge it much, but I will apply the same basic paradigm that operates under util/policymaking unless you tell me a different way to frame the round.
Hi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.
I am a blank slate and treat this event as truth > tech. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.
Tech > Truth here. Add me to the chain and I will vote on pretty much anything.
Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.
I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.
Experience – I competed in Debate for all four years in high school and was the Historian and Treasurer for my S&D club. 2 ½ years were spent doing CX, including my junior and senior year. My partner and I qualified as alternates for UIL State for the immigration topic (2018-19) and competed at TFA State for the arms topic (2019-20). I currently work in accounting at a law firm, and have previously worked in a high school as an aide for special needs students. I have judged continually since graduating in 2020. I keep up with debate outside of judging as a hobby.
For LDers - I prefer traditional LD. Not Policy based LD. You can run policy based, but seeing as I was predominantly a Policy debater and predominantly a Policy judge, it will be under far more intense scrutiny than if judged by someone who had not done Policy.
Note - Most of this applies to solely CX, but you will get some value out of reading it as an LD, PF, Congress etc debater. Specifically 'Speaking Style', 'Quality vs. Quantity', 'CX (Questioning)', and 'Flashing'.
Approach: Policymaker – This will explain itself more if you read my full paradigm, but essentially: I like advocating for some sort of policy. Affs with plans, negs with CPs, etc are all good in my book. Don’t expect to win just by running a Kritik.
Speaking Style –
You can speak fast if you prefer, but overt spreading (the gasping thing) is something I dislike. As long as you are clear and can make your point without me having to read along the entire speech, I’m fine with speed. Getting loud at points is fine, but I don’t like screaming just for the sake of screaming; use intonation and volume with a purpose.
I flow like someone who has never seen a sheet of paper, a pen, or any electronic device built in the last 30 years, so don't take me writing or not writing as a sign if you're speaking too fast. If I think you are unintelligible (or don't like your point), I'll most likely just stop typing, writing, everything and just sit and stare at you. It is up to you, as the debater, to debate with purpose and inherent value, and not try to overflow us or your opponents with arguments and speed.
I think you need to be able to make your point without being condescending as well – if you are rude, make snarky comments, etc. towards your opponents, your speaker points will be bombed, regardless if they call you out or not.
Please signpost and give roadmaps. Roadmaps can be off the clock before your speech.
As long as aff has some relation to the resolution I’m mostly unbothered by topicality. If it’s something actually specific or the aff is genuinely wildly nontopical, then run it. Running a generic T just to run one is lame; If you have to run generic arguments I’d prefer if you just didn’t run a generic T at all and ran something like a basic DA instead; it provides more substance for the round and gives me something to actually vote on.
For the neg – if you run T and say that you have no ground inside the round but are running multiple offs and/or almost any oncase with decent relevancy and links then that standard/voter will be heavily scrutinized. (If you believe you can make a strong case with it, go for it, but if not I’ll be side-eyeing it on my flow the entire round.)
Lastly, I believe your T shell must include standards and voters. I don’t care if you personally believe they aren’t necessary, if they aren’t included in a championship/varsity CX Topicality shell I will most likely not evaluate it. If they aren’t introduced in the same speech as the T shell but brought in later I will heavily scrutinize that as well.
Obviously, DAs are fine and you can basically do whatever with them. Be specific with links, UQ and everything of course. I prefer if you focus on urgent bodies (impacts that can have a realistic and tangible effect sooner rather than later) as opposed to big sticks (I’m looking at you, nuclear war). Of course, you can run a big stick impact, but my preference is on unique impacts. They make the clash more interesting. Make nuke/extinction work well and I will vote for it, though!
I like CPs that are executed well. As long as you prove that your CP does it better and the aff has no way of perming it then it will be a large voting factor. CPs can be topical or nontopical – I only bring this up as some judges have an issue with it. State net benefits clearly, if any (and I prefer if there are).
Something else to note is that I’m okay with contradictory neg positions as long as you adequately explain them. If you run a CP that triggers the DA just like the aff, maybe don’t run it or have a way to avoid the DA.
I like theory when it’s used in conjunction with what you’re already running. Only in extreme cases should you throw out all of your arguments and run with your theory arg.
On framework – Framework of the aff is what is inherently valued in the round unless neg runs a FW that they prove is better. FW should not simply state how to value the round, provide theory and research as to why your FW is important and relevant to your plant/the resolution. I love FW args if they are executed well by both parties.
are an argument. If you run a generic kritik that can be applied to any affirmative, I probably won’t value it highly - use your links and uq please. If you run a kritik and there is no alternative or your alt is to ‘reject the aff’, I definitely will not value it highly.
I don’t care. If you make a good case for condo bad then I’ll listen to it, but I quite literally have zero preference. The only thing I will ever stand being called tabula rasa for.
Quality vs. Quantity –
Like most judges, I will value quality much higher than quantity. Don’t try to win just by overwhelming your opponents with 12 generic DAs. As an aside – if you think there is an abuse of evidence (cards are cut abusively, dates are wrong, etc etc) call it out as soon as you spot it in your speech and I will review it.
Kicking Args –
If you want to get rid of an argument, just say you’re kicking it. If you don’t address it, it is dropped and automatically flows to your opponents, making your life hard. Don’t run a time wasting argument just to kick it (generic T’s just to 'test the aff'). If you kick something in the 2NC, bring it up during your 1NR just as a note.
While I don’t flow CX, I do listen to what is being said. If you want something from CX to be evaluated when I score, say it in your speech. I only pay attention to CX if there is a miscommunication, abuse, or some sort of error.
In TFA, I don’t care if you do open CX or prompt or anything, just don’t overshadow your partner. If you want to be the sole speaker, do LD (which is basically CX at this point).
Regardless if you flash your opponents or not, I would like to be included on an email chain/flash of some sort. This makes it easier to read flagged evidence and prevents the round from stagnating.
I do not disclose, please don’t ask. Tournaments don't like it and I don't like making the people that give me money angry.
Thanks for reading my long winded nonsense…
Bring me a Red Bull during an IRL tournament and I'll cashapp you for it :D Currently on a caffeine purge! Thank you to those that have offered in the past lol
Last Updated – September 14th, 2023
speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is email@example.com
im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.
one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.
please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them
parent judge truth > tech - pls send case in file share better for me to follow along
dont be racist transphobic homophobic etc thx
I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.
I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.
My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.
Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.
It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.
It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.
Hello everyone! I've competed in speech and debate for 5 years doing a mix of congress, extemporaneous speaking, OO, HI, etc. My main event in high school was Public Forum on the local Arizona circuit and national circuit.
Also, I have done no research on the topic. Please ask me any questions you have before round, I promise I'm nice. :)
I am a typical flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.
If you have any questions, or using an email chain add me, firstname.lastname@example.org
- the faster you speak, the higher chance I will miss something
- I and your opponents can say "speed" at any time and you should slow down, if you don't your speaker points will reflect that
- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.
- Arguments that you want me to evaluate should be extended with a warrant and impact in summary and final focus.
- Don't extend through ink.
- Please roadmap/signpost.
- Collapse; if not you might not like how I vote
- If your rebuttal "overview" is a hidden contention I will not evaluate it.
- do NOT make me do your dirty work, I will not appreciate it...
- Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense.
- don't just throw words out (ie. scope, magnitude) EXPLAIN why I should be preferring you
- I will only give you lower than 25 speaks if you do something TERRIBLE
- I do take the way you speak and hold yourself into account for speaks
Notes on Progressive Arguments:
- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or frivolous Theory, I will become annoyed and drop you. We both know that there are better debate venues for this.
- Arguments with critical and/or pre-fiat impacts not in K format can be ok, just make sure to give your opponents a meaningful route to the ballot.
- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments made using simple formats and weighing mechanisms. No to speaker point and disclosure theory.
- I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, Islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email. (one very important reason for this is because I have experienced it in rounds and the judges did nothing about it until the round is over.)
- Have fun!
Since I have been increasingly judging LD as well as continuing to judge Policy, I thought I should briefly discuss my LD paradigm. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is email@example.com
MY LD PARADIGM:
As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! OK, but, really, please do read the Policy paradigm below as well as this LD paradigm. Since all LD topics have some policy aspect to them, I remain interested in that, but I also enjoy a good V/C debate, which is essential to LD - if you don't want to have that discussion, you might as well do a Policy debate performance case, since Policy doesn't use values/criteria either.
A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention, especially if you relate everything in your case/your opponent's case/V/C back to it. In that sense, LD requires far more mental and organizational aerobics and acrobatics than Policy does. You need to deal with your case, your opponent's case, ensure your V/C are upheld and demonstrate either that they are superior to your opponent's V/C or that your case meets both your and your opponent's V/C. I am fine with plans and with counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than dealing with the theory of debate.
MY POLICY PARADIGM:
I like Policy debate because there's a structure of sorts and because I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the three primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy; inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems, and, presumption, which is a default policy-maker position and to which few people today appeal. I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” That’s simply abusive and I will cheerfully agree w/the Aff that calls foul on this. Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.
I also like cases that are at least minimally topical. For example, if the topic calls for the USFG to substantially increase security cooperation with NATO in the areas of cyber security, AI or biotechnology, the case should be at least dimly related to finding some way to do so. I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible.
I am also a policy judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making. Sadly, some Negs don't do this. If only they realized how easy it would be to get my ballot by doing so!
But, after having said that, I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say. I like CPs, but, as an elderly person who has been doing this since 1968, I think they should be untopical. If not, then, we have two affirmatives arguing for the resolution and presumption shifts to the Aff. Also, having a net benefit that is more than just avoiding some stock DA is a plus. That's because if you lose the DA, then, whoosh! Your NB is gone, too. Feel free to run a NB w/in the CP and a DA outside of it.
If you want to run a K, feel free to do so, but, since most of them are non-unique, have no link to the Aff, no threshold and don't provide, in most instances, a viable policy option to the Aff, it's pretty easy for the Aff to beat a K. I have voted for Ks before, but, generally, only when the Aff failed to win the argument. The more you link the K directly to the case and the more explanatory your alt is, the more persuasive your K will be. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.
THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND AN L3 BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated. Poor refutation organization - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself.
In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. COVID wrecked my hearing – I have tinnitus, so the louder you speak (especially if it’s an online tournament) the better.
Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )
Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)
Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.
TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)
Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.
If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.
Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge
Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.
Southlake Carroll '24
- 3+ years of LD experience.
- Be respectful to everyone in the room.
- Do not say anything that could be possibly offensive.
- I am fine with speed, as long as you are clear.
- Read any style of argument you want, just make sure there is offense, defense, and weighing.
TFA/ NSDA IE Coach:
Coached 2 National DI Champions: 2000 and 2012
Coached 2 TFA DI Champions; 1 HI Champion; 1 Duet Champion
Numerous Rounds at Nationals; several TFA DI, HI, DUO Finalists
UIL One Act play winning director ; State / Region competitors , 1st Runner Up, Samuel French Award winner
Current UIL One Act Play Adjudicator/ judging Zone through Region
UIL Congress State Coach in LD, CX and Congress 2019, 2021
UIL State Coach Prose
Professional Actor (AEA) for 25 years; BFA in Acting University of Texas, MFA in Acting the American Conservatory Theater
Even though I am currently coaching LD debate my focus is on IE'S
Medium use of spreading
Squirrel cases that don't make any sense at all.
Extemp: Speaking 60% Supporting material ,Organization 40%
Oratory: Speaking 60% Content 40% ( less debate style more universal content with some IE touches)
IE'S : YES to teasers, open minded regarding pieces. School approval only thing that matters regarding material.
HI: don't go too far away from author's intent/ but still be creative!
Thank you!! Break Legs!!!
If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.
Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)
* are new/significant
*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.
*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.
I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily
if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.
I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.
*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.
I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.
i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).
I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.
Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)
defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****
I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)
*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*
I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases
I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*
ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.
Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad
I'm tab. I'm a former CX debater. I'm okay with any style of debate, and any kind of argument you want to run. And yes that means you can spread as fast as you want, I'll keep up just fine.
But here are the things that are important to me:
-Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning for every argument. (Give me warrants.)
Updated for 2023 Szn
Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.
Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.
LARP/Generic Circuit - 1
Theory - 2
Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4
Tricks - Strike
I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.
Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.
Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.
Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.
I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.
I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.
There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.
Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.
Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.
Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!
I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.
My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.
I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.
A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.
If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."
I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.
Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.
I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.
The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.
I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.
I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.
I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:
- If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
- Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
- If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
- Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.
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.
Southlake Carroll '25
Make an email chain prior to the round if you can to get the round started in time.
- this is my first time judging however, I compete in vld, so I'm familiar with most policy arguments.
- most comfortable judging policy style LD and traditional but I'll try to evaluate all arguments regardless
- fine with some speed but I prefer you prioritize being clear
- don't forget to debate framework
- before your rebuttal speeches, please signpost the order of your speech and try your best to follow it to allow an easier flow
- collapse and weigh your case against your opponent's in your rebuttal speeches
Have fun, be respectful
If there's any questions you can ask me before round
Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.
LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.
CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.