Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational
2023 — Colleyville, TX/US
Varsity LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Spreading is in the nature of the debate beasts in the modern era…please keep it to 50% of your max.
I am a newer judge and coach, but I can appreciate all intellectually sound arguments. My largest concern is your understanding of your material and capability to defend it.
High school LD in the dark ages before the internet. I prefer traditional LD, and arguments to be flowable.
Superior logic, evidence, and skill in defending/refutation will always dictate my vote. In a very close race speaks will turn the tide in your favor. Strong presentation skills are part of the persuasive package.
I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be professional- yes I like it when people stand for cross examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents speeches but also to their team member's speeches. And the other way to pick up my ballot is to focus on cross examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.
Please do not ask me what my qualifications are to judge.
I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. I don't need trigger warnings, I don't need you to cater to me because that's not what speech is about. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.
For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.
For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, well-defined points supported with a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.
For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.
Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.
I am hard of hearing
I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.
How I evaluate debate.
Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.
If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.
Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.
I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.
If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.
I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)
These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.
1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.
The Respect Amendment
This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.
I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…
1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.
Background/experience: I debated for 3 years at Montgomery Texas High school competing two years in policy and one year in LD.
ALSO I PREFER TO DO A SPEECH DROP INSTEAD OF A EMAIL CHAIN. HOPE THATS COOL
***** : if you are flight two can you please try to have your pre flows and email chains ready to go before the round.
General Paradigm: I really think debate has become an activity involving strategy over anything else in policy and ld especially. Therefore, I will tend to be more perceptive to strategy over grandstanding on your critiques. Additionally, I felt like during my career that judges tended to put their own personal beliefs about debate and the issues being debated on a pedastool making them biased toward certain arguments like Ks over theory or theory over Ks. My goal is to be a complete blank slate as far as that goes. I believe things like frivolous theory can be a strategy even though some judges are biased against it. That's not to say I'm a theory hack because I'm probably the opposite, but I am receptive to it just as I am to a DA or K. Also don't say racist stuff or I probably won't like you.
REPS: i personally hate voting on these types of arguments. If your opponent was blatantly offensive that is different . However, if i had to make a intrapersonal decision about the moral character of a debater I would prefer not to.
I will say clear twice, then deduct speaks. If you are clear, then the main thing that I use to evaluate them is strategy. I will also adjust my speaks depending on the caliber of tournament. I will give a regular debater around a 28.8, a poor debater 28.5 and a good debater 29
My goal is to be the most tab judge you have ever had, so read anything you want, be strategic, and have fun.
Email me at email@example.com if you have any questions or for the email chain.
Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.
NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.
THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.
THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.
For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.
TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.
KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.
Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.
EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.
Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.
STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.
My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after. Currently associated with Marcus HS and DFW S&D.
FOR NFA - MY LD PARADIGM BELOW IS ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL. In general, refer to my policy paradigm. Here are some key differences:
- NFA-LD is short and I have a lot less tolerance for exploding blippy arguments than you'd probably hope. Keep in mind that the neg only gets two speeches- make your arguments have warrants in both of them. This is true in HS too but I'm also a lot less sympathetic to affs that rely on blip extensions.
- No I do not vote on RVIs in NFA-LD
- No RVIs means I'm more interested in procedural debates
At some point I will add a NFA-LD section but for now if you've got a specific question just ask me.
Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.
Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.
Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and you should check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)
Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.
Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.
Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.
I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.
Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.
On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.
Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.
Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.
Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.
Fairness is an internal link to education
AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate
Disclosure is good
1 condo advocacy fine
Nebel T is also silly
Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.
T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.
Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.
I don't have anything specific here except for the love of all that is good you need to have warrants. Please have warrants. Collapsing and having warrants is like 90% of my ballots here.
Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:
- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.
- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"
- Misgendering is also a paradigmatic issue. ESPECIALLY if you double down
[[ ]] poststructuralist positions have seemingly fallen out of the meta for some reason. this is saddening - i love the weird poststructuralist goop. if these positions are something you are interested in PLEASE email me because i would love to help out :0.
[[ ]] an updated thought on non-black engagement with afropessimism as of 8/29/23 - i am not and have never been a scholar on anything black studies, wilderson, etc. thus, i do not personally feel comfortable taking a hardline stance on the issue of whether or not non-black engagement with these arguments within debate is acceptable. i totally understand the perspective that would lead someone to make this conclusion, however, my relative ignorance of the arguments contained within the literature makes me feel personally uncomfortable with taking this stance, particularly since, after a bit of introspection, it comes from a place of personal discomfort as opposed to the actual argument contained within the literature. this is all to say - this is a debate that is to be had in front of me as opposed to something that I am going to reject on face. i am receptive to arguments that this kind of engagement is parasitic and should be avoided, however, i am not going to make that argument for students and i am interested in adjudicating this debate as it happens as opposed to using preconceived notions about the acceptability of these arguments. i do think though that this is a debate that should be handled tactfully and in good faith - if i get the inkling that is not the way the argument is playing out, i reserve the right to make decisions based on my personal biases.
[[ ]] update: since its something ive been asked more than once - i will follow along on the doc, but regardless i flow what you say and not what i read.
[[ ]] top level
- hi yall !! my name is dylan. i debated for plano west for four years and graduated in 2021. during my time i qualified to the toc and predominantly read critical arguments. i now attend UTD and competed for about a semester, mostly reading policymaking arguments.
- if you dont want to read: just read the bold. it's all the important stuff. if you REALLY dont want to read then i am best thought of as a "clash" judge. i am best for the kritik and policy. i dislike strategies that rely on avoiding clash ie lots of procedural uplayering, arguments that would be thought of as "tricks" and endlessly proliferating offs in the 1nc.
- email: email@example.com
- i am not judging as much as i used to this season which i think has made me better at thinking about debates than i formerly was, mostly because i feel to some degree separate from insular debate nonsense. this means i think ive developed less of a tolerance for debater nonsense than i had before.
- i have a zero tolerance rule for any kind of violence happening in front of me. this means any of the -isms or misgendering, but this list is non-exhaustive. i prefer to give minoritized people the agency to do what they would like in the event of violence. if you feel something violent has happened, feel free to let me know what you would like me to do. regardless of what happens with the round, however, doing any of the above most likely will result in a conversation with tabroom and your coach, as well as the lowest speaker points i can possibly give.
- i do not feel comfortable voting on out of round conduct EXCEPT that i think abusers should take Ls. If you think this applies to you PLEASE reach out so i can address it through the proper channels but I will try my best to make sure you dont have to debate in an unsafe environment.
- i like debate in all forms and i think it holds deep educational value that is not accessible anywhere else. i do not think debate is just a game and on some level i think debate in and of itself is a good thing. that does not mean that these assumptions cannot be changed or debated through, its just a small disposition i have. this means that i am unreceptive to and deeply dislike strategies that attempt to avoid nuanced debate and clash.
- think about me the same way you would Holden but less interested in pretending to want to adjudicate vacuous non-arguments that waste everyone's time (sorry holden <3)
[[ ]] K
- I used to consider myself best for the kritik, but this has since changed. nowadays i spend most of my time thinking about debate thinking about counterplan competition, topicality, and other policy-esque things. this is due, in large part, to having a disdain for the way the kritik is being executed most commonly in the meta. i am GREAT for you if you have specific links, can do specific analysis, if your aff talks about the topic, etc.
- likewise, i am TERRIBLE for you if you are reading generic backfile arguments, do not know what your cards say, etc. i hold these debates to higher standards because I think about it a lot and i know what you SHOULD be doing.
- i spend the most time thinking about poststructuralism, but i do not understand the high/low theory distinction that debaters so often make since I think most literature bases interact with each other and build upon each other. i do not think this should be relevant.
- the only real grippes i have in these debates are the things that most people get annoyed with which are: vague non-clarifications of arguments, not having any idea what your advocacy does, and doing very little specification and argument interaction outside of pre-written overviews.
- i have noticed that i have a disposition for 2nrs that include the alternative as opposed to a 2nr on framework. this is not to say framework collapses are bad, but ive found that these debates get repetitive and boring fast.
- rambling about the pre-post-fiat distinction makes me especially upset. pls do actual weighing and talk about your scholarship/research practices/whatever instead of just asserting the aff is pre-fiat or something like that.if i hear assertions about the pre/post fiat distinction without implications as to why it matters, i will cry.
- authenticity testing is GOOD and im tired of seeing takes that assert its not. knowing whether or not someone is personally invested in the fight theyre fighting is often important and can be especially important for preventing instances of violence ie cis people reading arguments abt gender at trans people, etc. If you are reading radical ontological positions concerning identity groups you do not belong to, you should be prepared to defend why that is good. i, again, do not have a hardline stance and this is a winnable argument.
[[ ]] Policy
- i am quite good for these debates or at the very least a lot better than you think i probably am. the best debates ive ever judged are policy debates and im very secretly a policy fascist.
- i think evidence quality wins and loses these debates more often than not. i encourage you to read your opponents evidence and call for me to read it if it sucks because i can and will do that and i've decided multiple debates based on how i feel about evidence.
- i love good impact turn debates and i think they're often underutilized.
- i will judge kick absent a theoretical objection. i think condo is good and infinite and am hard pressed to vote on it absent something egregious. i will not flow condo against one-off, since i think defending the squo should always be an option.
- I presume negative and i don't think any sort of LD theoretical argumentation will change that. i thinks affs need to defend something.
- risk starts at zero, yes zero risk is a thing.
[[ ]] Clash
- I am extremely good in these debates because i fall almost dead in the center on the T question. on a truth level i think a model of debate with the kritik is probably better but i vote for framework more often than not.
- I far and away have the most thoughts on these debates because it feels like this is the bulk of my judging.
- Jurisdiction is uncompelling and is almost never something im going to vote on.
- Procedural fairness is fine but more often than not it gets implicated as an internal link to clash rather than being a robust defense of fairness as an impact itself. while i think this is fine, i think there are significantly more strategic ways to go for fairness that dont just devolve to fairness good because clash. fairness is probably an impact.
- clash is goated and can be leveraged so strategically. probbaly my favorite of the framework 2nrs.
- more K teams in LD specifically should go for precision? framework teams read definitions that are HOT garbage and it confuses me as to why the counterinterp is usually not paired with precision offense.
- i think more often than not framework teams lose when they dont talk about the aff and read generic prewritten 2nrs. i think framework is very good when it gets contextualized to the aff in front of it and can talk about why the model of the aff in front of it is bad.
- i think k teams lose when they do not have a clear model of debate that they can defend that justifies the aff. i usually think the best way to do this is through a counterinterp but raw debate bad no debate impact turns are fine too.
- i have many more thoughts here but most are irrelevant. u do u.
[[ ]] T
- always down for a good T debate
- definitions are important because precision is probably the only impact that matters and being able to compare two different linguistic interpretations of the topic goes a long way.
- i dont really think pragmatic questions of an interpretation matter. i think the semantic and linguistic validity of an interpretation provides the basis for whats pragmatically viable. just because the topic sucks doesnt mean that you can just not be topical.
- framers intent also does not matter. if the intent was different then different words would have been chosen.
- a lot more open to T-whole res or T-subsets than i once was but if it reads cards from a certain debate author i would say probably dont. i still dont really understand the upward entailment test.
- wont vote on rvis.
[[ ]] theory
- definitely not the judge for a bunch of procedural uplayering that sacrifices actual argument engagement.
- will never vote on shells that blatantly dont have a violation, even absent an i meet
- will almost never vote on an rvi absent a straight up concession.
- happy to vote on disclosure theory when the interp is something like "must disclose 30 minutes before." more specific interps like full text, cites, etc will make me annoyed more than anything. the violation must be verifiable ie text screenshots or something. a verbal disclosure interaction that i cannot verify is something i do not want to have to deal with because people like to lie about this stuff for some god forsaken reason. im going to choose to not engage with it or vote on it if i cant verify the violation.
[[ ]] LD SPECIFIC:
[[ ]] phil
- significantly worse for this than i once thought but not terrible for it.
- i am far too eager to pull the trigger on extinction outweighs and i think you should probably have a robust and nuanced response.
- i think a lot of these debates end up consisting of arguments that are considered tricks which i would advise you against.
[[ ]] tricks
- no. i think the phrase "shut up" is probably sufficient to answer most arguments in this category.
- i likely will not think your independent voter is independent and likely will not evaluate it in a vacuum ie independently like you want me to. i put this in the tricks section because i feel as though ivis in their current state are tricks; ie one-line arguments with implications that do not match the warranting. voting on an ivi usually necessitates winning some sort of framework argument as well as a solvency claim that i think is usually almost impossible to win with one line in the 1ar.
[[ ]] evidence ethics
- since it has become relevant: i will not evaluate these arguments as a theoretical indict or a reason to drop the team. i believe accusations of academic dishonesty deserve to be treated with a level of seriousness that it cannot get if these arguments can be made without consequence. if this is an argument that is made, i will verbally ask if you are staking the round on it to ask for confirmation. if the answer is yes, i will stop the round. if the answer is no, i will delete the argument from my flow.
- if the violation concerns the content of the evidence, i much prefer rehighlighting as opposed to staking the round. i would prefer to not adjudicate an evidence ethics dispute if possible.
- if the argument concerns the form of the evidence, i will defer to the rules at the tournament (TFA/NSDA) and use that as the baseline for how i adjudicate the dispute.
for anything else: i would ask before round or email me. im always down to talk about my thoughts on debate! otherwise have a great round
Lindale HS (2017-2021)
North Texas (2021-Present)
If you are a senior and graduating this year (whether you do PF, LD, or policy), UNT has a debate program! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via the email listed below and we can talk about what UNT debate can offer you!
Add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I am good for any substantive style of debate that you partake in, I have experience both debating and judging high-level policy, clash of civs, and K v K debates. Not as great for theory debates, particularly the proliferation of them in high school LD, but am more than able to evaluate those debates should they be necessary, just slow down a bit on these. I have a slight preference for kritikal debates. Aff's do not need to defend the resolution or the USFG but should have a topic link. I lean affirmative on Condo in HSLD, can go either way in policy.
For Prefs (Ranked from top to bottom)
Clash - 1
K - 1
Policy - 2
Phil - 4
Trad - 4
Theory - 4 (I refuse to believe this exists as an argument preference for people but I've known LDers in my time who called it their argument of choice so I figured I'd put it here)
Tricks - 5
I did policy at Lindale high school in the middle of nowhere East Texas, I competed in both traditional (Texas UIL) and national (TOC) circuits in policy and just about everything in between. At the University of North Texas, I compete in NFA-LD which is one-man policy debate where our team has largely focused on the kritik. I have experience reading both policy and kritikal arguments both on the affirmative and the negative. I am slightly less informed about Post Modernism than I am about other sects of critical theory but beyond that blind spot I have likely ran and voted on any number of arguments in your repertoire. Do what you do best, and don't change your general strategy for me, just be ethical and all will be okay
Individuals who have shaped the way I view debates: Colin Quinn, Louie Petit, Rory McKenzie, Cody Gustafson.
I flow on my laptop and would say I am about a 7/10 when it comes to speed compared to other circuit judges, just slow down a bit in dense and quick theory debates.
My general opinions I have about debate are the following:
Affirmatives should be tangentially related to the topic (I can be persuaded otherwise) but that doesn't require the reading of a plan or an endorsement of the USFG (I can be persuaded otherwise). I think that I probably have a slight bias affirmative in debates over T-USFG, but my judging record may reflect differently, as I believe that on balance negative teams are better at debating T-USFG
Counterplan theory, PICS are definitely good, most CPs are good, but I heavily lean affirmative on conditions, international, and object fiat. Though if these debates exist in the literature I can definitely be persuaded that these debates are educational. it's largely a question of the quality of the solvency advocate here. I enjoy a good theory debate as long as teams actively clash here, too often I see teams just reading generic 2NC/1NR condo shells and then moving on without answering the 2ACs shell.
Conditionality is bad in HSLD, though I can be persuaded otherwise of course. I don't have a preference in policy.
Topicality is not a voting issue in it of itself, 2NRs need to win an impact. A 2NR on T does not need to spend their entire time here, but your speech on T should include a clear link story and terminal impact. Simply being non-topical is not a reason to vote the team down, non-topicality as a link to the aff necessarily creating a model of debate that leads to "x" terminal impact is a reason to vote the team down.
0% Risk is possible
Speech times are non-negotiables.
Speaks start at 28.3 — your decisions can either add or subtract from that baseline. I shouldn't have to mention this but bigotry is clearly a loss and 0 speaks,
HS LD, I am bad for tricks debates and phil debates, obviously willing to adjudicate them but have next to no experience with these debates or the literature in phil debates. I will likely never vote for an RVI on principle, something absurd would need to happen for me to vote for one.
If you have any other, more specific questions just ask me before the round :)
Hi. I did LD at Westwood High School for four years. Put me on the email chain - email@example.com
Affiliations: Westwood ('19-'22), DebateDrills Club Team ('21-'22)
I've shortened this paradigm because it was very lengthy, but the full one from the 2021-2022 season can be found here.
1] I am comfortable judging policy-style debates and T/theory debates, though the worse the shell gets, the more unhappy I am. I am comfortable judging phil and kritik debates if they don't get too advanced for my brain (pomo, Baudrillard, existentialism, etc.). I am not comfortable judging tricks debates, and though I will still evaluate those debates, I have great distaste in that debate and my threshold for answering those arguments is much lower than other arguments.
2] I agree with Rodrigo Paramo on evidence ethics and trigger warnings. Detailed specifics for ev ethics is below as well.
3] I think tricks args operate on a sliding scale; I think some tricks are worse than others. For example, calc indicts are fine whereas "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" is horrendous. Likewise I also think indexicals and tacit ballot conditional are horrendous arguments for debate. If you're not sure whether an argument is too tricky to read in front of me, err on the side of caution, or just email me pre-round.
4] I believe in open-source disclosure. I think most disclosure arguments that go beyond this are bad (contact info, round reports, actual tournament name, etc.).
5] I give speaks based on how far I believe your performance would get you at the tournament I'm judging at. I tend to average around a 28.5. Yes I will disclose speaks if requested.
6] I require much more explanation for arguments than you think I do. Many 2AR's that I've judged go for a 3-second argument in the 1AR that I did not catch/have an understanding for, and many 2NR's that I've judged blitz through overviews of the theory of power/philosophical position that I cannot keep up with. Either slow down or be clearer in explanations.
7] Slow down please, especially in online debates. You will not be happy with my RFD if I don't catch something because you're blitzing too fast.
8] I am extremely visually expressive. I know it's hard during online debate to see my face when you're reading through a doc, but you should almost always be able to tell if I like something/find something confusing.
9] I don't know anything about this topic. Err towards overexplaining and try not to use too many acronyms.
I perceive the following to be cheating (or check Rodrigo's paradigm):
- Cards starting or ending in the middle of a paragraph, or leaving paragraphs out (yes this includes the "they continue" stuff
- Miscutting evidence
- Misrepresenting the date of evidence
I would much prefer debaters stake the round on evidence ethics claims. I will notice clipping without debaters pointing it out, though you should still do so to make it easier for me. If there is an evidence ethics violation, it will result in the offending debater getting an L 25. If there is not a violation, the accusing debater will get an L 25.
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.
i debated LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.
- i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
- team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-now);
- program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22)]
i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: firstname.lastname@example.org. would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"
I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.
That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and thoroughly enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.
I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.
i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.
7 things to know:
- Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
- I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! you will be far likelier to win if you develop one flow for the 2nr, and will be served poorly by the attempt to go for every 1nc arg in the 2nr. In principle, this is also true for your 2ARs. if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it i think that likely means the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.
Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.
topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.
Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:
Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)
Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds.
If Debate: Explain your arguments in a simple manner. Don't go fast. English is not my first language.
If you make arguments about programming/computers make sure it is up to date and accurate.
The more persuasive and powerful speaker that is able to play the policymaker role
If IE: Make sure to speak clearly, make sure to have good volume so I can hear, English is not my first language but I am still proficient enough to judge, and follow the rest of the rules for your respective events.
Good Luck and remember you're bold for competing and your words hold power
Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at email@example.com
TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy and am best at judging policy arguments. (P.S. I realized that I tend to give way higher speaks in substance debates. Take that as you wish)
Policy - 1
Theory/T - 1
K (security, cap, set col) - 2
K (anything else) - 3
Phil/Tricks – 3
- Tech > Truth
- Fairness > Education
- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory
- T/Theory > K
- Comparative Worlds
- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD
- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.
- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.
- No buffet 2nrs please
- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously
- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar
- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation.
- Stealing prep
Things I'm not voting on
- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure).
- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater.
- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument
- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".
- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)
- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge.
- Likes: impact calc, ev comparison, plans with tight scenarios and big impacts, rehighlighting ev, cheaty CPs, reading theory against cheaty CPs, "the order is case"
- Dislikes: not weighing, old/no UQ, underhighlighted ev, plan flaw, other debater: asks you a cx question about your ev you: "where is it/that", literally extending your tags in the 2NR
- Somewhat familiar with most K lit at this point, but refuse to fill any substantive gaps in your explanation.
- Likes: robust line by line, root cause, link turns case, good fwk debates, pulling lines from the aff, actual alt solvency, set col vs phil, specific links to the plan
- Dislikes: massive overviews, "what's a floating PIK", the "state" link, the current standard for a sufficient explanation of ontology, no perms in a method debate
K Aff/T Framework
- Affs need solvency and a robust defense of their model of debate
- Negs need an answer to aff solvency and a robust defense of their model of debate
- Likes: testing, fairness, intuitive aff counterinterps, Non T aff vs one off Cap K, TVAs, actual solvency
- Dislikes: "T is violence/policing", 6 minutes of my coaches prewritten fwk 2NR, 3 minutes of my coaches prewritten A2 fwk 2AR, blitzing through the 1ACs theory of power, "we don't need solvency", 2NRs that ignore case
- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)
- Don’t assume I have read your literature. BUT, I will still evaluate just like I would any other type of debate. I just need a very clear extension of why your framework comes first/is true.
- Likes: extinction first, fun calc indicts, Blum, TJFs, going for turns under their fwk
- Dislikes: not reading a fwk in the AC, not reading a fwk in the NC when the AC doesn't read one, the "pragmatism" aff, TT takes out theory, hidden triggers in the fwk
- I will evaluate them the same as any other argument as long as I hear a claim, warrant, and impact.
- Likes: warrants
- Dislikes: "what's an apriori?", condo logic, indexicals, if the negs response to your trick is that it negates just as much as it affirms - you probably shouldn't read it!
- Love it!
- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier.
- Likes: robust weighing, caselists, infinite regress vs spec, combo shells with unique offense
- Dislikes: poor explanation of semantics, 5 second 1AR shells, 2NR theory that isn't severance
- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.
- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.
- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).
Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.
T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.
Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.
DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly
CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit
K- I am familiar with most of the k literature
CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at
In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).
First let me explain how to get a Hot L:
So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING
Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean
Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples
I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc
I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating
Background: I did national and local circuit LD for 2 years before I graduated in 2019. I was a progressive debater but primarily focused on stock and policy arguments. I understand fem arguments and focused on plans and counter-plans.
I have judged many tournaments for Worlds School Debate and LD. A couple of notes on my judging preferences:
1. Be kind during round.
2. Do not make blippy arguments.
3. Extend arguments. I will not extend arguments that you drop and there needs to be weighing between arguments on both sides.
4. Give voters and tell me why you win the round.
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. Make sure to explain your arguments well, especially if they are more nuanced. DO NOT READ A FLOATING PIC/PIK. I don't like abuse. I think abuse is unhelpful to the debate space. Do it, I probably will not vote for you.
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments.
Speed: I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. You can consider me a 8 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I think permissibility and skep. arguments are defense and don't prefer to see them in a round. I default to comparative worlds.
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad and probably won't vote how you want when making a decision (aka don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc). I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence "argument" that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun, this a great learning experience!
WS DEBATE PARADIGM-----
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?
World School debate is a team debate that talks about relevant topics. It is done through conversational speed and is highly integrated into the practicality of life.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?
I use Excel to take notes.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other?
I do not have a preference. I like to see comparative worlds arguments, so if you win on the principle/practical tell me why and how your world is net better.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?
I evaluate a speaker’s strategy based on fluency, articulation of arguments, and relevance. If it hits both the principle and practical levels, I evaluate it higher.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?
If I have to say “slow” you will have points deducted.
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
I look to see what how the evidence is relevant and if it is engaged with and articulated well in a round.
How do you resolve model quibbles?
I look to see how the practical influences the principle to resolve quibbles.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I accept them. I want to hear why your model/countermodel works better than the status quo and the impact analysis.
daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir
So who is this random guy?
Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)
*PF stuff at the bottom
(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2
Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)
Read bold if you have 5 min before round
Good news: My younger sister is starting middle school debate, so for the first time ever… I’m kind of a quasi-coach.
Bad news: I’m now writing for the Arkansas Razorback affiliate for Sports Illustrated. This means I judge whenever my publisher gives me a weekend off, which is like once in a blue moon.
I don't know how to say this without sounding like captain obvious in that Hotels.com commercial, but say what needs to be said to win the debate. If your 5-minute overview wins the debate, how can I fault you for reading it?
EXPLAIN JARGON! TOP of the NR/2ar should write the ballot for me, slow down, and really emphasize WHY you're winning this debate.
Speed is fine(a little-known fact about me, my fine motor skills aren’t the best due to, well reasons, so if there’s a long TAG, hold your horses and let my hand catch up, yes looking at you K debaters). GO SLOW ON TAGS AND AUTHOR NAMES and on the T debate
No RVI's!(like literally unless the neg reads a million T/Theory shells) That means don't spend 30 seconds of the 1ar reading an RVI, and 2ns STOP spending 2 minutes answering it. I promise I will be as unbiased as humanly possible in every other aspect of the debate. Let me have this one thing. Thanks! If you like to give a 3-minute RVI 2ar on a regular basis PLEASE strike me!
Analytics, send em. thanks. It's beneficial online, you never know when your audio is going to cut out for a split sec, also it's just better for accessibility. No, I'm not interested in publishing your analytics to the internet or sending it around the circuit to screw with you...
A quick word on speaker points: I think they are the worst form of judge intervention possible. My definition of the best debater ever or being "on the bubble" is wildly different than the judge for your next round and the round after that. Both debaters start at 30. Don't be mean. Don't come into the round looking to pick a fight with someone and you should be able to keep that 30.
I don’t care what debate looks like, it’s just that I only understand certain kinds of debate and thus can only (correctly) judge those kinds of debate. If you are comfortable with an incorrect decision, feel free to stop reading and pref me a 1. I would love to say that I have experience with all types of arguments and I’ve spent the last 5 years of my life obsessively cutting cards and reading literature every spare moment I get, the reality is I didn’t. NOT obsessively worrying about the latest development on whatever topic it is for that weekend. As you’ll see down below though, I have done debate before.
*below is how I feel about certain args and how I debated, please don’t be discouraged in running a certain argument based on the info below… I have biases/preferences, we all do, any judge that tells you otherwise is lying.
Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality Bad
Politics DA is a thing-x----------------------------Politics DA is not a thing
UQ matters most--------------------x------------Link matters most
Try or die----x-------------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption--------------------x------------------ No presumption
Resting grumpy face----------x-------------------Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency
Referencing this philosophy in your speech-----------------x----plz don't
Disclosure Theory-----------------------------x--------------Shut up and deal with it
(Creds to Buntin)
Other Random Stuff and rants
I will not stop a debate just because your opponent has read an author you don't like
I will not vote off anything that breaks the structure of the debate-(ie, speech times don't exist)
False accusations of Racism and Sexism are just as bad as Racism and Sexism itself
That being said... If you feel uncomfortable during a debate, PLEASE say something
role of the ballot = roll of the eyes
Card Dumps are bad. Quality>Quanity PLEASE, I'm BEGGING YOU
keep your own time
extreme clarity when cross applying is key
You have prep. Use it.
Again, Have fun!
PF- Claim Warrant Impact, just like all other debates. I'm about as progressive as they come. 98% of the time I judge LD. That means I have tolerance for speed, plans, CPs, K's, and the whole nine yards. It also means that I have the same evidence standards as your typical circuit LD judge. Paraphrasing does not exist*. Read the card like an LD case if you want me to flow the author names. Otherwise, you are out of luck, Read the card. Send the card. Be as clean as a whistle when asked for the card.
*If it's novice, I'm far more lenient. Have fun.
I'm a lay judge.
Please speak slowly and clearly.
Keep your own time.
Brief background of my debate experience:
I have been involved in speech and debate since the 90's. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a scholarship debater at USC (NDT). I also coached a LD program in a Southern CA high school a few years back. Recently, I have been judging rounds quite frequently over the last 4 years, mostly in PF and LD, but I am also familiar with this year's policy topic.
Speed is fine as long as it's clear. I will buy k's as long as the links are clearly explained and contextualized. I will only buy theory if there's clear in-round abuse. Leave tricks for Halloween.
Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: email@example.com
Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Please use a loud voice and do not full blown spread (70%) as it is the start of the year. Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch.
If you were to do any K, do it clearly, especially links and alts. Don't do performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse.
Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. Connect it back to the framework. I won't eval without extensions.
Have your cases ready!!
If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)
Hello, I am a traditional lay judge. I will understand you better if there is absolutely no spreading. I do not understand a lot of debate jargon. Generally speaking, be respectful to your opponent, and remember, this a professional round so treat it as such!