*For time purposes, I underlined/bolded the most important things*
I am a flow judge, so I focus on the flow and the arguments extended and dropped. However, I do appreciate the big picture because that, overall, clears things up.
~Lambert HS Sophomore
~PF + XDB Nat Circ Debater (6 years while qualifying for the TOC)
~Local/Nat Circ Speech (Extemp and Impromptu)
~Broke for World School
Please add email@example.com to the email chain. This should be started before the speeches. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain like "MSTOC Lambert High School ES vs. Ivy Bridge Academy KS."
All the stuff after this is negotiable, here are the two things that aren't:
1. No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, disclosing the wrong aff, lying about your disclosure, etc.
2. Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Everybody must stay comfortable during the debate.
Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you
IF YOU HAVE TIME, YOU SHOULD READ THIS (My extended Paradigm)
~Speaking: Ok, here is the deal. If you spread it may be somewhat hard to keep up. If you see me drop my writing utensil, it means that you are speaking way too fast. I'll also yell "clear" if you don't notice.
I encourage enthusiasm rather than speaking monotone. Monotone results in you for speaker points being as high as 26. If you don't weigh your impacts, you won't be able to get higher than 28 speaker points and will most likely lose the round. (Unless the other team does the same thing)
<26 means you were offensive/rude
26.1-26.9 means you need improvement and/or probably dropped case
27-27.9 means you probably missed things on the flow and might have made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round.
YOU CANNOT GET HIGHER THAN A 28 FROM ME IF YOU FORGET TO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ME.
28-28.9 means you are a good debater, probably can break at the tournament given pairings and other factors; you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing.
29-29.7 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, and, more importantly, you break away from weighing in a vacuum to comparative weighing.
29.8-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy.
~Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal is obliged to frontline all of the opponent's responses. If you don't do so, then I will consider it as DROP. Also, no independent offense in 2nd rebuttal.
~Summary: Both positions must extend both offense and defense for the summary. Again, if you fail to extend defense, it's a clear ballot for the opponents as their offense still stands.
~Final Focus: Focus less on the flow, preferably focus on the big picture.
~Weighing: Please weigh impacts!! It will increase your chances of winning. I care far less about buzzwords than teams making a comparison between link/impact stories. Also, try to do meta-weighing because it will give you a higher speaks (ASK me if you don't know what it means). Try to start weighing in rebuttal.
~Importance of Weighing
- Advance Techniques (Amplifier, Short Circuit, etc.)>Pre-Req
*IMPORTANT: Unless if you can prove me that your impact weighing is better than theirs or you do comparative weighing, the order doesn't matter.*
~Crossfire: BE Calm and not so abusive although I do like clash and poking holes into the other team's arguments. I will be paying attention, but it won't affect my decision as much. However, I will not be flowing it.
~Paraphrasing: There is much more stuff in my extended paradigm. I'll try to keep it short though.
- Please try to read CUT CARDS. I will not vote you down if you paraphrase, but I will be unhappy. (This also includes your rebuttal speech).
~Evidence. Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the HS Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome
However, I will drop you for the following reasons
Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).
Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.
Taking more than 3 minutes to produce a piece of evidence. Failure to produce a card will not result in me “removing” a card from the flow. You will lose the round, because you have used “non-existent evidence.”
- In my opinion, the summary is by far the most important speech in a debate
- I like indicts, so do it if you can. lol
- Sticky defense is bad (boohoo)
- I love DAs, every DA you read, I'll bump your speaks 0.1. (No DA in 2nd rebuttal tho)
- Turns are useless with at least a link and an impact. Turns with a uniqueness make it a lot better. If you do this, then you are a good debater.
- In order for me to buy any piece of offense, you must warrant, implicate, weigh, and frontline. If you don't do any one of those requirements, then I won't consider the in my final RFD.
- Creative arguments I like – stupid ones I don’t. If you find a quality card that makes a unique argument, I’ll be a fan. If you’re stretching together a couple of words from 4 different blogs to make a unique argument, I will not be a fan.
- Read content/trigger warnings before reading something that could be potentially uncomfortable for opponents, and PLEASE CHANGE YOUR CASE IF YOUR OPPONENTS DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE CASES. This also applies to all the other speeches (rebuttal, summary, final focus). If you don't comply, then I will dock your speaks + auto drop you.
- Idk about theory arguments, triks, kritiks, etc, but if it is in the round, then it must be expressed very well throughout the debate. However, I HATE Friv Theory, so don't run it. If one team brings up a theory argument in the round, then I will automatically look to that first (I don't care how wack it is). If the opponent fails to respond to the theory argument that is expressed, then I have to give the dubs to the team that ran the theory. However, if I believe the theory debate is a wash, then I'll just be a normal tech judge who looks down the flow and see what arguments are the cleanest.
- I really hate it when debaters classify judges whether they are truth or tech. Anyways, I am Tech>Truth, but I'm not 100% sure of it.
- If you see me nodding my head, it doesn't mean that you made a good argument. I just do it because I feel like it. Don't take it into account.
- Making any Math, Food, Johnny Harris, Kurzgesagt, or Mark Rober references will give you +0.5 speaks.
- In all, be independent/responsible through the debate. I will be keeping time, but I also expect you to keep your own speech and prep time. Just let me know when you start/stop prep and don't go over the time limit, etc. I dislike it when debaters try to steal prep. I trust all of you debaters and good luck in your round!
- IDC about post rounding. If you think you got judge screwed, then tell me.
Good Luck Debaters!
*P.S. At the end of each round, I'll put a random meme in the RFD (idk why I do this). Below is one of many if I am your judge.*