Carroll HS TFA Winter Classic
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
Speech Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Please be prepared to time yourself.
If this is a prompt-based speech, please state your prompt before you begin and report your time when you are done.
Please send your case doc or outline - firstname.lastname@example.org
. Speak clearly and not too fast. Slow down on major points, value, criteria, framework, definition, etc. What about spreading? If I can't flow, I can't judge. If you need to insert that much material into the round, you need to provide the outline of that material, at a minimum. In four years of judging, I've only seen one round decided on the sheer volume of evidence introduced and counter arguements and that round didn't have spreading.
. Sign post, then stick to it. If you jump around, I can't follow you. If you drop a point, don't pick it up in another speech.
. Provide outline: numbering and lettering points, impacts, etc, so I can track.
. If you run an unusual case/framework/K - you have to uphold it. You can't just say here it is and that the other side isn't allowed to argue it. This is a debate, so let's debate.
. If you say the sky is green, fine with me, cite reputable sources, and debate it.
. If you run your case without sources, everything you said is your opinion and doesn't win against even the worst sources cited by the opposition.
- For L/D, if you concede framework to your opponent, and the framework argument from the opponent is clear, then framework above contentions. If you don't want to argue framework, go debate policy.
. All common historical context currently taught in Washington State high schools is allowed (ex: The holocaust happened). All obscure or controversial fiction-as-fact must be upheld with reputable and current sources (ex: Jan 6 was just a misunderstanding from a reputable world-wide source).
Poetry/Art/etc as debate
If a case is presented in a format that you haven't seen before or understand how it is relevant to the topic, please use your cross to clarify. Then debate it. Everyone had the same time to prep/research. Now you need to think on your feet.
Meta such as role of the ballot, drop the debate, drop the debater
Role of the ballot - I enjoy ROTB arguments
Drop the debate - make a very strong case
Drop the debator - there must be a clear and obvious ethical or moral breach in the round. I don't drop the debater because they haven't understood the importance of something you said to them on a personal level within the pressure and speed of the round. If you request drop the debator - then you need to walk me through the violation slowly because you've just rested the entire round on this one point and I need to understand it.
Meh - a topicality argument needs to be strong with subpoints. Don't say something isn't topical. Walk me through it.
If you skip voters, or assume voters based on debate, then I get to choose. Probably not what you want me to do.
If your opponent doesn't literally concede a point, but instead drops it or doesn't argue it in a way you deem valid, do NOT say they conceded. That is disrespectful to both the judge and your opponent.
Southlake Carroll '22, UTD '26
email@example.com (put me on the chain please) || Messenger: Neha Boyapati ( < feel free to ask me any questions you might still have)
Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 5 years, 3 in PF and 2 in worlds. I qualified for TFA state in PF my freshman and sophomore years and for Worlds in my junior and senior year. I broke at a few bid tournaments in PF. In worlds, I'm the 1/4 for Southlake Saffron and the 3 for Southlake Gaslight Gatekeep Girlboss as well as the TFA state 2021 champion. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala. I'm also a fan of tarun (southlake carroll TR)
TLDR; tech > truth, down for anything that isn't offensive/exclusionary
My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My role as a judge is to evaluate arguments based on how you present them in the round without bringing in external biases. That means I'm tech > truth and all dropped arguments are true.
The ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.
I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one.
*update for cybay: it's been a while since i've been involved in pf so it's definitely in your best interest to treat me as a flay judge. clear worlds comparison/weighing and extensions/implications of your evidence will make me like you. i don't know much about this topic so explain your arguments well. i can keep up w/ some speed but if you're planning on going moderately fast (~200 wpm or more) then PLEASE send me a doc! also please set up the email chain before the round starts and add me to it. since evidence ethics in pf has gotten really bad you MUST send all case and rebuttal evidence on the email chain. this will make the round much smoother for everyone.
Substance: I'll never not be happy to judge a pure substance round. The flow is important - extending through ink is 100% not a thing. Second summary gets way too much leniency, no new frontlines to any responses from first rebuttal and no new defense in this speech. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Disads/offensive overviews are fine in first rebuttal but not second. No sticky defense. No new arguments (including weighing) in final focus. I couldn’t care less about cross, feel free to use it for prep if you want, but if you choose to do it then cx is binding.
Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF, but tbh I'm probably not a good judge for anything besides theory. The only non-negotiables I have here are that speech times are set, "bUt tHiS iS pF" isn't a response, and I will evaluate the debate after the second final focus (unless you're tryna concede, not debate, and settle the round with a game in which I feel you). If you're reading multiple off-case arguments please make it clear when you're going from one to the next.
theory: I default drop the debater (except on T where I default drop the argument), competing interps, and no RVIs, but if you can’t read and warrant paradigm issues you’re getting 20s. I very much prefer shell format but paragraph is fine too as long as you make it clear that you have all the parts. I have no problem with friv theory nor do I have a problem with friv theory bad shells. I'm familiar with the basic arguments like disclosure, paraphrase, TW, topicality etc., but if you're planning on running a more complex shell then please slow down and overexplain it. I would prefer a doc for all shells being read. Please clearly delineate between the different parts of the shell. I'm not up-to-date enough on current pf norms to have many set beliefs, but I do believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is usually bad. This is not to say you can't win against these shells with me as a judge, but it might be an uphill battle.
kritiks: A lot of Ks in PF are bad. Your alt needs to solve. I have a very basic understanding of basic Ks so you should definitely really overexplain (especially high theory and non-T/performance Ks) and send me a doc. If you read a floating PIK in PF i’m dropping your speaks. ROTB is fine as long as you run it properly. Perfcons on both theory and Ks are very persuasive. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW like saying it’s violent will annoy me.
phil: I’m most familiar with/have gone for structural violence and deontology but read whatever you want. These debates are very compelling and interesting when done well and very boring and confusing when done poorly. Please don't bore or confuse me.
tricks: As uneducational and bad for debate as these arguments are, somehow I ended up knowing a good amount about them. Read them I guess, I won’t intervene on the flow - just on your speaks. I default comparative worlds, permissibility negates, flip a coin for presumption. Don’t be sketchy in cross
Evidence and Prep: I expect all evidence to be sent cut w/ tags. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to send evidence after your opponent calls for it, I'll start docking your speaks. I will read all evidence sent on the chain, and will ask to see any other cards only if I am explicitly told to do so. please extend ev by author name/year AND what the card said! I try my best to write down all author names but if you're going too fast I won't be able to catch everything (hint: you can avoid this issue by sending a doc!). I don't like evidence debates but I understand they happen a lot in PF - indicts are fine but I would much rather hear defense. Flex prep is fine. I won't time your prep but I will not be lenient on any instances of obvious prep stealing.
Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.
What do I want to see in each speech? The one is pretty self-explanatory, I expect the opp 1 to start some refutation to the prop. I don't particularly care that much if your 2/3/4 are line by line or grouped into voters. When I debated I tended to do a mix of the two so I'm definitely biased towards speeches that do a good job of giving me a big picture comparative as well as winning the line by line, but I'd much rather you debate in the style you're most comfortable with rather than changing how you do speeches to try to appeal to me.
What kind of arguments do I buy/How do I assign points? Any argument really. My tech over truth philosophy applies here, argue whatever you want no matter how ridiculous it sounds on face. If you win it on the flow then you win it. Worlds arguments are stock and repetitive 90% of the time so I absolutely love seeing unique args/strats. Please, for the love of god, resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over. Also I love weighing so please weigh!!
This is a hot worlds take but I strongly believe and will die on the hill that principle arguments are outweighed by the practical 100% of the time. That being said I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument) and I'll evaluate them just like any other argument, but if you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal.
I don't really care all that much about for the points system, I'll probably just assign speaks the same way I do it in PF (based on how good your speeches are). Good rhetoric/humor and style may be more persuasive and make me like you, but at the end of the day whoever wins on the flow wins the round.
Speaks: I think speaker points are a really dumb system so I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers but speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(. auto 30 if you make a joke about/somehow make fun of anbu subramanian
Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means)
Congressional Debate -
Presiding Officer: Presiding Officers should be an individual who can show mastery levels of understanding of the role of Presiding Officers in the chamber. It's understood this would be a presiding officer who, once elected, can show leadership of the chamber by beginning with a phrase similar to “this chamber will come to order.” I expect the Presiding Officer will use their best effort to recognize speakers around the chamber in a fair and balanced manner. Describe gavel time signals. Explain procedures clearly: i.e., how they will recognize speakers, etc., that the Presiding Officer will not call for motions at any time (speakers should seek their attention when they wish to rise to move something), and that when it is clear that debate has exhausted on a bill/resolution, The Presiding Officer will ask the chamber if they are ready for the question, rather than waiting for the previous question (which should be reserved for forcing end to debate that has become one-sided or repetitive in arguments). The Presiding Officer should have confidence and authority when addressing the chamber. The Presiding Officer should use a calm, controlled and caring voice to show a genuine interest in the chamber’s business at all times.
Speakers: My expectations for speakers are competitors who have their speeches made beforehand on bills that they really have a passion about. Speakers should be ready to speak and ask questions that are going to challenge their opponents to think candidly and without much preparation. I expect speakers to think critically on the bill in question and be able to show expertise on the subject at hand. These topics take some time to truly research. I will be able to distinguish a speaker who has really taken the time on the topic beforehand or a speaker who clearly is looking for "cheap" speaking points. Although this is simply competition to some, this is a great practice and really good insight for folks to understand how our Congress works in the real world. I want them to understand the Difficulties of passing legislation that may be viewed as "one-sided" or not. I expect good back and forth discussion amongst speakers when it comes to various bills that may one day, affect them in real life if we are to see these bills appear in a real State or United States House of Representatives or Senate. These folks are the people of tomorrow. WE need our folks more involved than ever before; so to my speakers; act as if you have genuine care and passion for what you are debating for as if your FUTURE depends on it and is hanging by the rafters.
I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.
- PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
- if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
- tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
- My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!
Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do
(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette
if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time
POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it
Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.
don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho
don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check
best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round
clash can GO a long way in this event
For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.
gestures are neato, but don't go bananas
witty banter is a plus
I only judge congress in person not online
NEVER wants to Parli a round
if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person
tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth
I better see clash
if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!
When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions
I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links
I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech
I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!
Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision
FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)
Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns
Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it
I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross
When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis
^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T
I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall
Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful
Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"
take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc
Tech > Truth (most of the time)
links can make or break you
value/criterion - cool
stock issues - cool
K - cool
LARP - cool
Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike
never assume I know the literature you're referencing
I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything
look at LD above
PLZ send a doc
I expect to see clash
no speed, this needs to be conversational
don't paraphrase evidence/sources
STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine
its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round
not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1
^ don't take on too many - it kills time
don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated
the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed
as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration
Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues
I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.
May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!