University of Houston Cougar Classic
2018 — Houston, TX/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePast Experience: Four years of PF and Extemp at Clements High School, competed at the State and National levels
Currently attending UT Austin (Class of 2019)
PF Paradigms:
I was more of a traditional PF debater, so I'm not as well-versed or receptive to progressive arguments, so avoid abusive arguments and complicated theory. That being said, I'm fine with most arguments as long as you provide clear and reliable evidence, explanations, and impacts. Just remember this is PF, not LD or CX. I will vote strictly on the flow, so be sure to signpost and make your arguments/extensions very clear. Provide me with a weighing mechanism and some parameters as to how I should evaluate the round. If you impact your arguments but don't tell me how to evaluate them or why they matter more than your opponents arguments, it's hard to make a cohesive case for your side. Line-by-line attacks are super helpful and encouraged. As for speaking, a little speed is fine, but absolutely no spreading. Annunciation and clarity are really important, as it's hard to evaluate your side if I can't understand what you're saying.
Background: Competed in speech/debate for 4 years in high school.
Public Forum
General: I seek to minimize judge intervention, so clear weighing mechanisms are important. Will flow line-by-line and vote on impacts, so signposting is important. Make sure to address counterarguments sufficiently when making extensions. Clash is important, but remain respectful, don't be passive-aggressive, etc.
CX: I do not flow CX; if something important comes out of it, mention it in a subsequent speech.
Evidence: May ask to see questionable evidence. Misrepresenting evidence will lose you the argument but not necessarily the whole debate.
Speed: Personally not fond of spreading as I prefer clarity/fluency. I am comfortable with some speed and will flow what I can understand, but will stop flowing when it becomes unintelligible and deduct speaks accordingly.
Theory: Receptive to complaints regarding abusive argumentation. Will consider some progressive argumentation (counterplans/plans, kritiks, etc.) but nothing too convoluted; public forum should remain accessible to laypeople. I do prefer traditional debate and am more liable to intervention in a theory-heavy debate; make sure that argumentation is especially clear and warranted if you go this route.
I participated in Public Forum Debate for 4 years and am very knowledgeable about the event. To a certain extent, I believe that PF Debate is a speaking event and prefer if you don't speak too fast/spread. However, if the round comes to it, I am able to flow fast speaking. I would like to see weighing in the speeches to make it easier for me to decide the winner of the round. Additionally, please don't just try to "extend" everything ESPECIALLY don't extend through ink. Explain the argument effectively and why it is important. In summary, try to crystalize arguments and focus on the ones that will help you win the round. There's no need to extend terminal defense if it is not responded to and it usually won't be a voting issue.
Overall: Speak clearly, make logical arguments, use weighing mechanisms, and make it easy for me to sign my ballot.
Things I vote off:
- The Flow
- Arguments extended in every speech and properly defended
- Turns (but you also can't drop offense)
- Truth > Tech
Things I don't vote off:
- Conceded arguments brought up again in the summary/final focus
- Being extremely rude to your opponents (I won't vote against you for being rude, but your speaker points won't look too pretty)
- Spreading arguments so you can have 6 contentions and 45 responses in the rebuttal
- Theory/Kritiques not properly ran... I would just advise not running them at all because there is not enough time to explain them comprehensively in a Public Forum round
- New arguments in the second summary or any final focus, don't worry about responding to them if your opponents do, but make sure you clarify to me they're new arguments because I won't do the work for you
If you have any other specific questions in round, ask me before the round begins. Remember this is just high school debate, have fun and be kind, it's an educational activity not a game.
*Updated for January 2020*
St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21
Email: cara.day@utexas.edu
Or FB message me with questions
I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.
General/TLDR
-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.
*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.
-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.
-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact, or you don't get access to the argument.
-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol
-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.
-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).
- CX is binding
- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.
- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.
- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)
-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.
-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.
- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)
Speaks
I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.
Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.
If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/
If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.
For PF:
General
Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.
Rebuttal
2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).
Summary
My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.
Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.
Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.
Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. Man ... it better be ...
If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.
Final
I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.
First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.
Ks/Theory/T/CPs/etc.
I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.
Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.
If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.
For LD:
My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)
Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1
Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1
Ideal FWs: 1
Theory/T: 2
Tricks: 2
K: 3
Non-T Affs: 5
Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.
FW: I'm a philosophy major, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc
Theory/T: I default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.
If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.
Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.
Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.
DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.
Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!
If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.
The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.
Background: I did PF at Clements for 4 years; TFA qualled 3 times.
Arguments: No theory or Ks. Arguments need to be weighed and crystallized. Weighing should be in every speech. Extensions should be made properly – claim, warrant, impact. Second rebuttal should respond to first. If you want me to take note of anything from CX, mention it in the next speech.
Summary & Final Focus: Anything in the final focus MUST be said in the summary, except for defense in the first summary. However, it is in your best interest to extend crucial defense through first summary. Summaries should try to mirror the final focus. Voters need to be extended through every speech.
Speaks: It’s PF so there’s no need to spread. However, I am fine with speed. Just be clear or its not on the flow. Most importantly, SIGNPOST!
If you have any questions feel free to ask before round. Don’t be rude, don’t be offensive. HAVE FUN.
Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)
Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com
PF Paradigm
· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.
· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:
o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.
o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.
o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.
· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.
· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.
· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.
· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.
· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.
· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.
· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.
LD/CX Paradigm
Big picture:
· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.
· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.
· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.
· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.
· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.
· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.
· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.
· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.
Speaks:
· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.
· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.
Trigger Warnings:
Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.
The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.
If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.
Framework:
· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.
· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.
Procedurals:
· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.
· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.
· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.
K:
· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.
· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.
· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.
Performance:
· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.
CP/DA:
· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.
· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.
· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.
· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.
· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.
· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.
Tricks:
· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.
Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.
Competed in PF primarily on the Texas circuit with a little bit of national circuit exposure at NSDA Nationals and the TOC.
I'm tab; I'm open to any (inoffensive) argument as long as it's well-warranted.
I can handle speed as long as you aren't spreading. Clarity is key and if I can't flow it I can't evaluate it.
I strongly prefer that the second speaking team address, at the very least, all offense on both sides of the flow (opponent's case and turns on their own case). Ideally, the second speaking team should also address some critical pieces of defense on their side, but it is definitely acceptable to frontline defense in second summary. If the first speaking team doesn't extend turns in first summary, the second speaking lucks out and I can't penalize them for not defending their case in second rebuttal. I do not require terminal defense to be extended in the first summary, so the first speaking team can extend that from rebuttal to final focus.
All offense that you want to collapse on needs to be in the summary speeches. That said, however, you don't need to go for everything. Just focus on what you need in order to win the ballot.
When making extensions, please try to extend both the link and the impact.
Make sure to have good weighing, organization, and collapsing. Please signpost! Tell me exactly where you on the flow you are addressing so I don't have to waste time looking for it. Otherwise, I'll wind up flowing less of your speech.
Weighing your arguments is incredibly important. I will do my best to avoid any intervention whatsoever, but if you aren't going to weigh properly, I may be forced to do the weighing myself. This is very risky for you.
Given the ubiquity of sketchy evidence in PF, I take evidence ethics very seriously. Feel free to paraphrase evidence, but do so with integrity. Egregious misrepresentations of evidence will disappoint me greatly, and will damage your speaker points and likely my decision to vote for your side.
I will call for contested evidence if debaters make it clear they want me to call for that evidence. I may also call pieces of evidence that I suspect may be misrepresented.
Witty, inoffensive humor will likely benefit your speaker points!
Feel free to ask any further questions prior to round.
Background: He/Him/His pronouns. I am a third-year law student at NYU and currently coach PF at Durham Academy (NC).
Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add nmengisteab@gmail.com to the email chain.
Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but it is up to the debaters.
Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut cards means I won't evaluate your evidence in the round.
Main PF Paradigm:
- Offense > Defense. Offense requires proper extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be difficult to win with just terminal defense.
- Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but please be clear; if you aren't, it will be harder for me to flow.
- Speech specifics: The second rebuttal must frontline the first rebuttal responses. Generally, anything in Final Focus should be in Summary—extensions and frontlining matter. New weighing in final focus is flexible depending on the position and/or whether it's responsive (this doesn't give license to dump all new weighing in the last speech).
- Please weigh: Use comparative weighing for your links and impacts with either timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms. Please note that winning your arg's link first is more important than only focusing on weighing.
- I'll evaluate (almost) anything. You can expect I'll have already researched a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will intervene and vote you down) if you argue anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).
- I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.
"Progressive" PF:
- Generally like topical debates, but I'll evaluate args below:
- Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e., Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). Generally, run at your own risk.
- *Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you must do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. Evidence of abuse is needed for theory, especially disclosure-related shells. I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, preferably cut-card open source, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow. If your disclosure is unintelligible b/c you pasted pages of article text, then I don't think you really disclosed (open to this as a response as applicable).
- Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression. Use your best judgment here.
- *Note - if you read excessive off positions in a PF round (ex: 4), I will try my best to evaluate the round, but run at your own risk.
Misc: Please preflow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are necessary to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; Speaker points usually range from 28 to 30.
Questions? Ask before the round.
I am the coach at Lake Travis High School in Austin, Texas.
Policy:
Speed:
I'm fine with speed and any argument style. I'll say clear or slow if needed, start off slower at the beginning of your speech so I can get used to your speed and voice. You probably won't be too fast for me but gauge your speed - I make pretty evident facial expressions if I am lost. I ran a lot of CRT during my high school career, favoring Afropess, so I am comfortable with a lot of critical theory but far left lit like Deleuze or Virilio will need more explanations. Really do whatever in front of me, I'm pretty tab - you can do 1off k or 8 off policy making args as long as you impact and provide a clear framing.
Speaker Points:
My scale is 25-30. I have given few 25s and 30s this year and average about 28.5/29. Here is a rough outline of my scale;
25 - you said something racist, sexist, homophobic etc., were rude or demeaning to your opponent and/or make the debate space unsafe
26-27 - You tried. You dropped some pretty big things on the flow, had inconsistent speed/clarity, didn't impact things out on my flow etc.
27.5-28.5 - you were clear but behind on the top layers of the flow but had decent delivery
28.5-29.5 - you probably deserve to break and you are average/above average. This is the most common speaks I give so don't be surprised if this is what you get.
30 - literal mic drop. You will probably win the tournament if you get a 30. Props.
Theory:
This is fine. Do it if theres abuse. I'm prob not the most receptive to frivolous theory.
Topicality:
I used to have a sticker that said "Topicality is a Timesuck" but my paradigm on this front has probably changed. Especially on this topic I think Topicality is a pretty good litmus test at weighing arguments and offense but I don't think I would hedge my bets entirely on T with me as a judge. I think policy ignores a lot of standards comparison/clash that it probably needed to have an in-depth T debate leaving me mostly disappointed a lot of the time. T probably isn't enough to win you a debate round on neg so if you are going all in on T you probably aren't winning unless your opponent drastically mishandles it. Overall not a huge fan.
CPs:
Do it, I'm receptive. A strategically ran CP/PIC is probably a good strat in front of me as long as you weigh under a given policy fw. They're good if you run them well.
DisAds:
Im fine with it - I am more receptive to specific links/internal links and won't just sign a ballot if you have a big stick impact. On this note, I am probably decently persuaded by a 2AC that does a lot of impact defense. However, defense isn't enough to win on the flow here.
Ks:
Probably my favorite style of argumentation. My kids run a lot of fem and critical/performance stuff so I am familiar with the way kritiks exist & their debate application. Make sure you articulate the alt well and the impact story following the links. I am fine with K affs as long as you emphasize the framing and why my ballot is important.
Performance:
Do it. I am very receptive to this style and write/work with a lot of this on my team. Impact the ballot story well and you will do better in my eyes. Performance is cool and I am a big fan. (Don't forget to extend the performance and embody it all the way through...people don't do this enough and it makes me sad.)
Have fun, make good choices. Framework is the most important thing to me so impact things under it and you'll do great in my eyes. Debate is supposed to be enjoyable and educational so make it that way.
LD:
Pretty much the same as above but I do think the neg in LD seems to warrant an advocacy, especially in Value/Criterion debates or in truth testing the resolution. I default to an offense-defense paradigm a lot here because of a lack of framework weighing. FW is a pretty easy way to get my ballot in LD, I would suggest leveraging this on other arguments as well.
Mainly competed in PF in the Texas circuit and some national tournaments.
I'll buy most arguments so long as they're backed up by evidence. That being said, I probably won't respond well to progressive arguments (k's, theory, etc.) I basically vote off final focus, and anything in final focus should be extended through the summary speech.
I'm fine with a framework, but it's not necessary in the round if neither team brings one up.
Please signpost before rebuttals, summaries, final focuses; I'll probably get very lost and confused without some sort of idea of where I should flow.
Speed is ok so long as there is clarity, but I don't see the need for spreading considering PF allows you to paraphrase evidence. Also, on the topic of paraphrasing, if you think your opponent is kinda stretching the truth with whatever they're paraphrasing, I'm fine with you calling it out for me to read before I make my decision.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.
I'm a lay judge--but I'm quick to pick up the terminology. I'm looking for the best (most clear and sound) argument. I prefer strong structure, organization, and presentation, but I'm open to a strong moral argument.
What's up.
I debated in Varsity PF throughout my 4 years in high school mainly on the Texas state debate circuit. However, I've attended a few bid tourneys and I'm an NDF alum so I've been exposed to a ton of different styles of debate.
Speaking
Over the years of watching LD elims at bid tournaments on youtube I have become pretty accustomed to speed. However, this is PF still so don't "spread" and just try to maintain a balanced pace. If you're an experienced team that's obviously debated for a few years and you go out guns-blazing against some team that should be in the novice division then I will dock your speaks greatly because it's kind of an a**hole move.
I can be generous with speaks but generally my scale goes like this.
(29-30)- Perfect speakers, do the work for me on the flow, expecting to advance into late outrounds.
(27-28)- Good speakers and debaters as a whole, just need to polish up more to get higher speaks, possibly breaking to early outrounds.
(25-26)- Fluency breaks, lots of drops and jumping around the flow without signposting.
(24 and below)- extremely rude, offensive, or acted in an appropriate manner for a high school debate round.
Road Maps
Please give me a road map before all your speeches, It just makes it way easier for me to organize my flow and it honestly helps you out too if you want me to get everything that you say and not have to scramble to extend points. This is most important when it comes to overviews before rebuttals im.
Constructive
I really don't care what you run as long as it's topical and you can warrant and weigh your args really well. If your opponents run a really squirrelly case and you bite on it for some reason I could potentially vote for them if they beat you on it, so just stay on topic if this happens. I'll evaluate pretty much any arg unless it's obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. ALSO, I thoroughly enjoy seeing the second speaking team putting responses on cases at the end of their constructive, I will definitely evaluate them on the flow.
Rebuttal
First off, if you don't give a weighing mechanism in the constructive this is your last chance. I'll evaluate overviews for both second speakers. I prefer rebuttals line-by-line down your opponent's case with numbered responses to each argument (easy to flow, comes off beautifully). This is also where you need to start doing work for me on the flow telling me what to extend, turn, drop, etc. based off of a weighing mechanism because if I have to do the work for you, you could get the result you weren't looking for. First Speaking team should just go straight down your opponents case and that's it, don't try to preempt responses based off of CX because it won't do anything for you until after. Additionally, the second speaking team should spend ideally 3:30 attacking and 30 secs frontlining responses made on your case (maybe 3:00 and 1:00 if you're in a pickle ). I definitely won't dock you for not doing the 50/50 split but I do expect frontlines in the second rebuttal.
Summary
In my opinion, this is the most important speech of the entire round. When giving the summary, it is your job to collapse onto your winning arguments and to start the weighing. If you don't bring something up that you're winning on in summary, I won't evaluate it if it is brought back up in FF. If you spread yourself too thin and try to go for too many args though, you won't be able to weigh well and I won't have a compelling reason to vote for a lot of weak possibly winning args over one or two giant substantive ones. I believe that you should ideally spend more time on offense in this speech rather than defense because if you go out all on the defensive then you're already burnt toast.
Final Focus
Now this is where everyone else cares about the most. For me it's simple, if it wasn't said in summary, then don't say it at all because you'll be wasting your time. Also this is where you must explain to me as clearly as possible as to why your case/arguments outweigh your opponents based on your weighing mechanism. I also prefer you to pick around 3 key reasons why you won rather than simply continuing to extend and frontline responses (i'll still evaluate that though).
Crossfire
Don't be rude and your speaks won't be affected. Try to take turns. Don't be the kid who says "you had your turn it's now mine" when they ask for a simple follow up. But don't let them keep dragging you down a rabbit hole with follow ups. I don't usually flow crossfires unless a concession occurs. However, I do look at them to help determine speaks and your confidence in cross can really set the tone of the entire round. AND PLEASE TRY TO STAY ORDERLY IN GRAND CX.
Progressive Arguments/Off-case
I fully understand the excitement of PF becoming progressive, I too ran theory in a few rounds when it was necessary. BUT this doesn't give you an excuse to run progressive args for virtually no reason. With theory, there better be an actual abuse in round that you need to check because if you're doing it to be silly then I'll be really inclined to drop you. I'm pretty well versed with most Theory now, but with disclosure just now becoming available in PF, if you run disclosure theory I will hate you. Kritiks and CPs are fine if you word them in a way to sound PF-esque and have legitimate alts. Aside from that I still enjoy progressive debate to an extent.
I'll be constantly updating my paradigm as I judge more often but hopefully this will be a good basis for what you need. And feel free to quickly ask me questions before round about things I didn't cover because i'll take note to add it right after the round.
General Debate Paradigm
Speed: I can handle speed, but I don't like spreading. Spreading hinders communication, imo, and while I can understand it, if you're introducing me to something that I'm not familiar with, it's likely that you're not leaving me enough time to really consider it, and you're probably not taking the time to explain it particularly well.
Kritiks: Make the links specific and significant. Establish the context fully. K's must have an alt, and the alt must be something that we can implement, not just thinking differently.
Theory: I rarely judge on theory unless there are specific and significant abuses--which I was likely to penalize without an ugly theory debate. I will vote you down if you run disclosure theory.
Truth over Tech, and Depth over Breadth: I will vote up one true/viable argument over 5 drops of lazy/lame/bizarre arguments.
I would prefer for debaters to engage in research and would rather have an in-depth debate over a single main issue than 20 that are superficial.
Speaker Points: I use speaks to reward good public speaking, not strategic choices.
Public Forum Specific:
Second rebuttal does not have to respond to the first rebuttal.
Speakers should stand for crossfire, but can sit for grand crossfire.
Lincoln-Douglas Specific:
Some LD topics allow for a plan text, but certainly not all. Ask about specific resolutions.
No flex prep.
Stand for CX.
Please argue author creds.
Policy Specific
Stand for CX.
No open CX.
No flex prep.
In-speech prompting will cost you speaks.
I am a policy-maker judge. I want the debate to be about the topic and to have a good discussion of policy implementation and impacts.
Please argue author creds.
The easiest way to win my ballot is through clarity. I’m a simple judge. Give me clear warrants and impacts and explain why those impacts matter more than your opponents and you’ll win! Run whatever you want to but please make sure you can coherently justify your argument. If I ask myself - “why does this matter?” - there should always be a very clear answer.
Also, just some things that I want you to remember....
1.) I expect the second rebuttal to respond to the arguments made in the first rebuttal (strategy is key here).
2.) I prefer all speeches to be line-by-line.
3.) EXTEND IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS THROUGH EACH SPEECH! That includes final focus and summary. Don’t bring up something in the final focus that wasn’t mentioned in summary (synergy between partners is crucial).
4.) If there is a piece of evidence you want me to review at the end of the round, then explicitly tell me to call for that card in one of your speeches. If you don't ask me to call out any cards, then I have no reason to believe that either team is misrepresenting evidence.
5.) Imagine a situation where you get screwed by a bad judge in a round that you think you should’ve won. When you leave the round and your friends ask you “What happened?”, and you give them that detailed breakdown of the round and why you should’ve won, just remember: Everything you tell them in that moment is what you should tell me in the final focus. I’ve seen way too many rounds where teams just lack focus in their final focus ;).
If you have any questions, please make sure to ask me before the round begins. You never want to lose a round simply because you didn't understand your judge's paradigms/expectations.
Clements High School '15, University of Houston '19
Conflicts: Clements High School
Background: I did LD for two years, PF for two years, and FX and Congress all throughout.
Speed: Don't speed.
Arguments: I'm fine with any argument as long as it's explained clearly and backed up well.
Biggest Pet Peeve: DO NOT FORCE ME TO MAKE EXTENSIONS FOR YOU. I will not vote off of new arguments made later in the round, so you better be making extensions in your first rebuttal and weighing throughout the round. I make it explicitly clear every round that the debaters should make it clear who's winning the round, and yet every time, someone will forget to extend and drop a great argument that could've helped them win, but that I can't vote off of because they dropped it. DO. NOT. DROP. ARGUMENTS. Extend, Extend, EXTEND.
History: I did PF and DX for 4 years. I've been to state and nats and have judged all debate and IE events pre-covid I was a pretty traditional PF-er, so if you run something that you'd see in LD or CX (CP, K, etc), explain it well.
Some things to note:
1. Not a huge speed person, but if you have to, ENUNCIATE.
2. Assume I know nothing-explain all the terms and abbreviations you're using in your speech
3. OUTWEIGH
4. Give clear voters in the final speech
5. As much as I would like to, I cannot extend arguments for you, so if it's one of your major voters, make sure I can see you extending it across my flow.
6. Don't be rude in cross fires or speeches
I won’t evaluate progressive arguments. That being said, I'm fine with most arguments as long as you provide clear and reliable evidence, explanations, and impacts. Just remember this is PF, not LD or CX. I will vote strictly on the flow, so be sure to signpost and make your arguments/extensions very clear. Provide me with a weighing mechanism and some parameters as to how I should evaluate the round. Lastly, make the round interesting and entertaining.
Argumentation:
1.) If you want me to vote on an argument , it must be extended every single speech
2.) If an argument is dropped during the first oppurtunity/speech you have to respond to it, it is considered factually true and will be voted on if rule one is met.
3.) If you are the second team to speak, you must defend and extend your case (or the parts that you want me to vote off of at the end of the round) as well as attack your opponents case.
The practice of parphrasing evidence is heavily abused and I am well aware of this. I understand this isn't something you can control unless you've prepared in advance but I would strongly encourage you to not paraphrase your constructive. If you want to paraphrase evidence in the rebuttal then okay, but I don't have much leniency at all to paraphrasing that blatantly overblows or misrepresents the ideas expressed in the original piece.
Speaks:
I'm pretty decent with speed. I do not believe in the idea that PF should be exclusively conversational. I will say clear if I need you to slow down. If you have the ability to ennnunciate properly while spreading and I can't keep up with you because I can't type/write fast enough, it will not reflect poorly on your speaks. If you start slurring or you aren't able to speak loud enough but you continue at the speed you started with , it will reflect poorly on your speaks.
Conversely, if you speak excessively slow to the point where I feel your four minute rebuttal is a one minute speech, it will reflect poorly on your speaks.
Framework:
CBA isn't a framework, don't waste time by reading it in round. You can introduce framing in rebuttal instead of constructive if you'd like. You should have proper justifications why your framework is true.
Specific arguments:
Theory/T: Do it properly and understand it if you want to read it. I will vote on any shell with the exception of perhaps the most frivolous of theory arguments. And make sure you extend the entirety of each shell. Don't drop the violation 2 speeches in and only extend voters.
Plans/ CP's: I like these a lot. Just make sure when you're doing it in PF that you actually have all the components of each type of case.
Kritiks: You can read these but make sure to elaborate upon them in your own words if they contain any complex literature. Also, do not paraphrase any evidence you read with this kind of argument.
I was more of a traditional PF debater, so I'm not as well-versed or receptive to progressive arguments, so avoid abusive arguments and complicated theory. That being said, I'm fine with most arguments as long as you provide clear and reliable evidence, explanations, and impacts. Just remember this is PF, not LD or CX. I will vote strictly on the flow, so be sure to signpost and make your arguments/extensions very clear. Provide me with a weighing mechanism and some parameters as to how I should evaluate the round. If you impact your arguments but don't tell me how to evaluate them or why they matter more than your opponents arguments, it's hard to make a cohesive case for your side. Line-by-line attacks are super helpful and encouraged. As for speaking, a little speed is fine, but absolutely no spreading. Annunciation and clarity are really important, as it's hard to evaluate your side if I can't understand what you're saying.
I debated for Loyola High School for 4 years (policy), Wake Forest University for a semester (policy), and El Camino College for two years (parli). I now coach PF at the Harker School.
I've debated both traditional and nontraditional forms of debate. There really isn't an argument that I won't hear. I have a higher threshold for theory, and rarely vote on potential abuse. But beyond that I do not have any serious predisposition to any arguments you read. Or at least I shouldn't... Blatantly offensive arguments, like impact turning racism or etc, probably will lose you the round though. Just be smart.
Speaker point break down - I'm pretty fair about speaker points (though I don't think there will be a judge who will tell you they aren't fair about speaker points) but I'm quick to catch on to things on general impoliteness vs sass (love sass). Just be a good person and speak well etc etc. Y'all should be mature enough to know what that means.
PF -- "paraphrasing" your evidence is not evidence and will result in a loss.
Background: I did PF at Kempner for 4 years and have received a TOC bid/broke at TFA state multiple times.
TL;DR: The easiest way to win my ballot is through clarity. I’m a simple judge. Give me clear warrants and impacts and explain why those impacts matter more than your opponents and you’ll win! Run whatever you want to but please make sure you can coherently justify your argument and if I ask myself - “why does this matter?” - there’s a very clear answer. Overall, I want you to be relaxed and have a great time so DON'T STRESS IT and do your best!
Specifics
1. EXTEND IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS THROUGH EACH SPEECH! That includes final focus and summary. Don’t bring up something in the final focus that wasn’t mentioned in summary.
2. Imagine a situation where you think get screwed by a bad judge in a round you think you should’ve won. When you leave the round and your friend asks you, “What happened?” and you give him that detailed breakdown of the round and why you should’ve won just remember: Everything you tell him in that moment is what you should tell me in the final focus. I’ve seen way too many rounds where teams just lack focus in their final focus ;).
3. Please be polite and professional in CX. Trust me, I can tell when an argument doesn’t logically follow through. You don’t need to waste time being excessively rude and dominant just to get your point across to me. At the same time, I won’t mind if you cut your opponents off every now and then if they’re being clearly excessive in their answers. You have to make the judgement call but just know if you continuously make the wrong call it will definitely reflect in your speaks. Just think “professional and polite” and you’ll be good!