Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational
2023 — Colleyville, TX/US
World Schools Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
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)
School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (for case/evidence sharing)
School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS
Years Judging/Coaching - 39
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39
Order of Paradigms PFD, LD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)
Public Forum Debate
I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't really like fast PFD. The time constraints just don't allow it. No plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run but more traditionally and not calling it a disadvantage.
I have experience with every type of debate so words like link cross-apply, drop -- are ok with me.
The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview
I flow - IF you share cases put me on the email chain but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing not reading.
Lincoln Douglas Debate
A good debate is a good debate. Keep in mind that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation - I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theory used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.
Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens serve as the same thing - these are mechanisms for how determining who wins the debate. If a value is used it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and not acceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round then move on.
Evidence and Basic Argumentation:
The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case however I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I don't like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy but expect that you can explain and understand the philosophies that you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD by nature is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.
Flow and Voters:
I think that the AR has a very difficult job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then make sure to explain the importance or relevance of that argument don't just give me the "it was dropped so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is an important argument; you have to tell me why it is important in this debate.
I can flow very well. Slow the heck down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.
I have been around long enough to have seen the genesis of Kritik's arguments. I have seen them go from bad to worse, and then good in the policy. I think that K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and specifically the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LD is asking me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That being said, I will listen to the arguments but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I will vote on a "K" in LD.
I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a clear abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is important. Also, know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. or knowing what non-unique really means is important. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though unless you have a compelling reason.
WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE
I have experience and success coaching American Style Debates. Worlds Schools Debate quickly has become my favorite. I have coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournament every year that I coached WSD. I judge WSD regularly and often.
The main thing to know is I follow the norms of WSD (that you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?
WSD is a classic debate. The type when folks think about the debate. Much more based on logic and classic arguments with some evidence but not evidence-heavy. It is NOT an American-style debate.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?
I flow each speech.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
I look at both. Does the principle have merit and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think that the practical idea has to solve but is it a good idea?
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?
Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.
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?
The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.
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?
The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?
How do you resolve model quibbles?
Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?
A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.
Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.
Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.
The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.
email@example.com for the chain
*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*
Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.
You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.
Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.
I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.
I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.
Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.
I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.
Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.
I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.
Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.
I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.
LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)
Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)
Topical Ks: 2
Non-Topical Ks: 4
I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.
For my general paradigm, I consider myself tab. There are no arguments I do and don’t like. I will judge the arguments presented in the round and I don’t want to impose my own beliefs or arguments into the round. You have to tell my why the arguments made in the round matter. If you fail to give me a way in which to evaluate the round, I will default to a policy maker. Being a policy maker, I am looking for the negative team to run disadvantages, counter plans, kritiks, and anything else. As a policy maker, I am looking for you to terminalize your impacts. Why specifically is nuclear war bad? Does it kill millions of people? Just saying dehumanization or nuclear war is bad isn’t an impact. I will gladly listen to counter plans, theory arguments and Kritiks. My only advice on the k is to tell me what the role of the ballot is. Why is my ballot key to your alt?
I will vote on T when there is proven abuse. I need to see in-round abuse for me to pull the trigger. I think T is a legitimate tool for a negative team, but I strongly urge the team that goes all in for T to make sure they can prove in-round abuse. If the aff is just failing to make arguments on the T, I will vote for it, but my preference is for in-round abuse to be occurring.
I am not a fan of LD 1AC spikes. I honestly don't think that the Aff gets to remove ground from the negative. I don't think these arguments are legitimate. Let the neg make claims and then argue against them. I will tell you now, that I WILL NOT vote on them. I see them as a waste of time for you to run and they are highly abusive. I also rarely vote on RVIs. If you plan on trying to run spikes in the 1AC, I am not the judge for you. I will give the Neg a lot of access to simple arguments to knock down your spikes.
I think it is important that you are an ethical and nice person in the debate. It is ok for the round to get heated, but I don't see the need to be rude to your opponent. This will result in a hit to your speaker points.
I don't have a problem with speed, but make sure that you are clearly telling me your tags. Slow down on the tag if you can. Be clear in your transitions. I like next or and to let me know you are moving from the end of a card to another tagline. The same thing applies to your plan text or alt. Slow down for the plan text/alt or repeat it for me.
I like flushed out frameworks but don't be abusive with fiat. If you run any interesting models then warrant why they are reasonable.
Warranting is important, especially in rebuttal speeches
Weigh as much as possible
don't make the debate boring, I know its harder with certain topics but please try to be entertaining and have fun
follow wsd norms, if you're confused please ask
School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None
Hired - yes
If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a
Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas
College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate
Years Judging/Coaching - 4
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots
Check all that apply
_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level
_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments
Rounds judged in other events this year
Have you chaired a WS round before? yes
What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.
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? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.
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? style
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? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.
How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs
Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.
Now onto the stuff about me...
NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.
***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.
In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.
I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.
Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.
Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm
Only send speech docs to Powell.firstname.lastname@example.org
ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.
About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.
Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.
Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.
Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.
Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!
Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.
- Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.
Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.
General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.
Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.
Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.
Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.
I am a traditional judge (don’t spread). I encourage you to use Value clash and weighing frequently. Stats and evidence is needed to support your arguments (my coach taught stats)- don’t just state them in your constructive. Your arguments that are extreme (war, extinction,racist, etc) need to be legitimatized. I don’t just buy the extreme arguments unless you prove they’re probable. Philosophical arguments aren’t as compelling without data. Use pathos too, it helps. Furthermore, my decision is made based on the Rebuttal. That’s what the focus of the debate should be. If you want me to focus on a point, say it in the rebuttal for it to factor into my decision. The Neg constructive is also the first neg rebuttal. Also, extend evidence. I admire weighing. Don’t just say your argument is better. Place your argument and your opponent’s on a scale, show me how your are comparatively better. Watch hot words in resolution like “on balance” or “just”. Advance the debate, evolve arguments to respond to what’s being said. Speaker points and speaking ability is a big help and your speaker points will be given accurately. Also, be polite! Use your cx to clarify, poke holes, and expose. Finally, keep your time and remember your prep. JUST BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION SAYS OUGHT DOESN’T, IN THE SLIGHTEST, MEAN YOUR VALUE NEEDS TO BE MORALITY!! Your value needs to match the content of your case.
School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):
The Hockaday School
Years Judging/Coaching (required)
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)
Check all that apply
__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level
__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments
_____I occasionally judge WS Debate
_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before
_____I have never judged WS Debate
Rounds judged in other events this year (required)
Check all that apply
____ I have not judged this year
____ I have not judged before
Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)
What does chairing a round involve? (required)
Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)
WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)
I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)
It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.
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? (required)
For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.
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? (required)
I do that in the style section.
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? (required)
I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.
How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)
I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)
First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!
If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.
I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
I primarily did Public Forum debate in high school, but I also competed in Congress, Policy, and Lincoln–Douglas. I competed on the local, state, and national levels.
1. I'm willing to evaluate just about any argument. I don't want you just spouting nonsense words at me, but if you want to talk about how troops in Okinawa are necessary to combat kaijus or how T.H.A.A.D. is needed to shoot Santa Claus out of the sky, I'm game. If your opponent's/opponents' argument is nonsense or unsourced, point that out, and tell me why that's bad. It's your job, not mine, to do the work to take down opposing arguments. Kritiks, counterplans, disadvantages, theory shells, and topicality arguments are all fine with me, just do the work to explain yourself and your arguments. The more absurd the argument, the more fun we all have.
2. Speed is fine, but if you're going to spread, I think it's courteous to email your case to your opponent(s) and the judge(s).
3. Be kind and courteous. I won't vote you down for raising your voice in CX/Crossfire (unless you get truly hateful, offensive, etc.), but your speaker points will tank. I understand things can get heated, but this is supposed to be a place of rational thinking and discourse. It's not a shouting match.
4. If you're able to be comedic while remaining polite, you'll be getting good speaks. If you make me laugh, you're probably getting a 30.
5. I appreciate signposting as you go and providing a roadmap before a speech. It helps keep things clear and organized.
6. I like voters. Even if you've got weird arguments and argumentative tactics, I would appreciate you shortening them down into brief arguments that highlight the importance and how you're winning on that argument.
Hi! I debated worlds for 2 years and dabbled in LD, but pls beware my knowledge/experience in both have become lowkey rusty lol
A couple of things:
- If the arg is important, take the time to explain why it's important and impact it out. If you think it's one of the biggest args in the round, I probably think so too, so don't sell it short - 30 secs isn't enough to tell me why my ballot should be weighed solely off this arg. Properly warranting and impacting out your biggest arg is more valuable to me than filling the flow.
- Weighing is too important to forget! I won't necessarily believe that the princ or prac is more important for a given motion, so don't leave it for replies or the last minute of your third speech - do that work for me early on so I have a clear method of understanding your argumentation and why it's better.
- Models are always fun but not when they become the central focus of a round. A countermodel gives opp teams ground, but uniqueness is what makes them work in the first place. If there are unresolved quibbles by the 3s, drop it - you're wasting valuable time on a framing mechanism. Same thing with narratives and examples! They're nice embellishments you can add here and there, but they don't warrant arguments.
For the little amount of time that I did LD, I liked LARP debates the most. I'm familiar with Ks and Theory, but still please make sure to flesh it out/explain it well for me to fully comprehend b/c I haven't interacted w progressive debate in years
A couple of things:
- Line-by-line is great! I'll evaluate the round based on what my flow looks like
- Some speed is fine but try your best to keep it at a conversational pace so that I can follow along and flow everything you want me to flow
- I fall victim to not caring as much about FW as the debate progresses, but still make sure all of your args relate back to your V/C. I should be hearing why/how you fulfill your FW when you crystalize the round for me
- During rebuttals, I shouldn't be hearing new args here - crystalize and weigh weigh weigh!! Why should I value your impact above the other teams? What arg should I be prioritizing when evaluating my flow?
If you have any other questions before/after round, feel free to contact me and/or (please) add me to your email chains: email@example.com
Happy debating! Be confident, trust yourself, and have fun :)