Nick Abbott Paradigm

From Livermore CA with a son who is a Quarry Lane alumni. Have judged over 200 speech and debate rounds in the last four years, mainly Pufo, but pretty much all events except Policy. The main focus of my judging intent is to provide feedback within scope of tournament rules that will provide each student areas of improvement that will benefit them in their post high school public speaking activities. As a result, I take ballot input or RFD to each student very seriously.

Students: this is the best time in your lives to develop world-class speaking and agile/extemporaneous thinking. Go for the trophies, but the real win is the skill set.

Public Forum, LD, and overall guidance:

Speed: there's a trade off between quantity and elucidation. Negative returns if you 'spread'. Enunciate. If a listener can't understand your points, then how can you win an argument?

Offline roadmaps please.

Evidence and card wars: absolutely required to have crystal clear evidence with each of your contentions and subpoints. On the other extreme, card wars that fall into 'quantity' vs relevance, and become card dumping, will hurt the team with that approach. This is pofu, not Pokemon.

Framework and contentions: are they clear, consistent, and comprehensively covered (and attacked by the opposing team)?

Etiquette: lack of it, particularly if I conclude that one team takes the debate to a shouting match, has caused teams with a stronger case to lose the round and/or speak points hit.

I'm open to all logical arguments. I flow but am really a flay judge. E.G. I'm not a policy absolutist about all points being repeated in final focus, for example.

A final note, the students in speech and debate, from my perspective, are inspiring. It's a privilege To help these tournaments happen for the students.

Revised April 11, 2018

Sandy Berkowitz

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN), where I teach communication and coach Public Forum, World Schools, Policy, and Congressional Debate. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

I debated policy in high school and college and began coaching in the early 1980s. In addition to the events listed above, I have coached and judged Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, Oratory, Rhetorical Criticism/Great Speeches, Informative, Discussion, and (and to a lesser extent) Interp events, at variety of schools in IL, NY, NC, MN, MI, ME, and CA.

Public Forum

Fundamentally, I believe that PF provides debaters with opportunities to engage and debate key issues of the day before experienced debate and community judges. It is useful and important to understand and adapt to a judge’s preferences. So, for me:

General issues

--The crux of PF is good solid argumentation delivered well. Solid arguments are those that relate to the resolution, are well organized, well warranted, and supported with quality evidence that is explained.

--Good analytical arguments are useful but not normally sufficient. If you make an argument, you bear the responsibility of supporting, explaining, and weighing the argument.

--I flow. But, clarity is your responsibility and is key to a good debate.

Evidence Ethics

--Evidence is critical to building good arguments and that includes warrants. Use academically rigorous and journalistic sources to support your arguments. Offering a laundry list of 5-10 names with few warrants or methodology is not persuasive.

--Proper citation is essential. That does not mean “University X” says. A university did not do the study or write the article. Someone did. Source name and date is required for oral source citation. Providing qualifications orally can definitely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of your argument. The complete written citation (including source name, date, source, title, access date, url, quals, and page numbers) must be provided when asked in the round.

--Exchange of evidence is mandatory when requested. There is not infinite prep time to find evidence. If it takes you more than a minute to find a card when asked, or all you can provide is a 50 page pdf, then I will disregard it.

--Paraphrasing is not as persuasive as reading cards and using the evidence appropriately to develop and deepen your arguments.

--If you have misconstrued evidence, your entire argument can be disregarded.

--Evaluate your own and your opponents’ evidence as part of your comparative analysis.

Strategic issues

--Extending arguments goes beyond authors and tag lines. Extend and develop the arguments.

--Narrative is key. Debate is inherently persuasive. Connect the arguments and tell a story.

--It is in the best interest of the second speaking team for the rebuttalist to rebuild their case. If the 2nd speaking team does not do that, they likely yield the strategic advantage to the 1st speaking team.

--Avoid Grand becoming yelling match, which is not useful to anyone.

--Clash is critical. It is vital to weigh your arguments, which is best to begin before the final focus. Write the ballot in the final focus.

Delivery and Decorum

--PF, and all debate, is inherently a communication activity. Speed is fine, but clarity is absolutely necessary. If you unclear or blippy, you do so at your own peril.

--Be smart. Be assertive. Be engaging. But, do not be a bully.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Finally, have fun and enjoy the opportunity for engagement on important questions of the day.

World Schools

Worlds is an exciting debate format that is different from other US debate and speech formats. It is important for you to understand and adapt to the different assumptions and styles of Worlds. Content (the interpretation of the motion [definitions, model, stance], arguments, analysis, and examples), Style (verbal and nonverbal presentation elements), and Strategy (organization, decision making, engagement, and time allocation) all factor in to the decision and should be seen as critical and interrelated areas. Some things to consider:

--As Aristotle noted, we are influenced by both logos and pathos appeals, which you should develop through both examples and analysis. Thus, narratives are critical. Not just a story to “put a face on the motion,” but an overall narrative for your side of the debate.

--Motions are, in most cases, internationally, globally focused and your examples and analysis should reflect that.

--Have multiple, varied, and international examples that are used not only in the first speeches, but are also developed further and added in the second and third speeches to be more persuasive.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--POIs can be statements or questions and are a key element of engagement during the debate. Questioners should be strategic in what to pose and when. Speakers should purposefully choose to take POIs and smartly respond to them. Typically, speakers will take 1-2 questions per constructive speech, but that is the speaker’s strategic choice.

--Importantly, carry things down the bench. Answer the arguments of the other side. Rebuild and develop your arguments. Engage in comparative analysis.

--Third speeches should focus the debate around clash points or key questions or key issues. Narrow the debate and offer comparative analysis.

--Reply speeches should not include new arguments. But, the speech should build on the third speech (especially in the opp block), identify key voting issues, and explain why your side has won the debate.

Be smart. Be articulate. Be persuasive. Take the opportunity to get to know other teams and debaters.

Policy and LD

I judge mostly PF and World Schools. But, I have continued to judge a smattering of Policy and LD rounds over the last few years. Now that you may be concerned, let me be specific.

Overall, I believe that rounds should be judged based upon the arguments presented.

--Clarity is paramount. Obviously, my pen time is slower than it was, but I do flow well. Roadmaps are good. Sign posting and differentiating arguments is necessary. Watch me. Listen. You will be able to tell if you are going too fast or are unclear. Reasonably clear speed is ok, but clarity is key. For most of my career, I was a college professor of communication; now I teach communication in high school. I strongly believe that debaters should be able to communicate well.

--Do what you do best: policy based or critical affs are fine. But, remember, I do not hear a lot of policy or LD rounds, so explain and be clear. Having said that, my area of research as a comm professor was primarily from a feminist critical rhetorical perspective. In any case, you bear the responsibility to explain and weigh arguments, assumptions, methodology, etc. without a lot of unexplained theory/jargon.

--Please do not get mired in debate theory. Topicality, for example, was around when I debated. But, for other, new or unique theory arguments, do not assume that I have current knowledge of the assumptions or standards of the theory positions. It is your responsibility to explain, apply, and weigh in theory debates. On Framework, please engage the substance of the aff. I strongly prefer you engage the methodology and arguments of the aff, rather than default to framework arguments to avoid that discussion.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--Last, and importantly, weigh your arguments. It is your job to put the round together for me. Tell a good story, which means incorporating the evidence and arguments into a narrative. And, weigh the issues. If you do not, at least one team will be unhappy with the results if I must intervene.

Finally, I believe that Policy and LD debate is significantly about critical thinking and engagement. Better debaters are those who engage arguments, partners, opponents, and judges critically and civilly. Be polite, smart, and even assertive, but don’t be impolite or a bully. And, have fun since debate should be fun.

I am a lay judge. I do not have debate experience, although I have been judging debate for about three years.

I will try my best to flow your debate and judge based on the flow, but:

-Speed: If you talk too fast, I probably won't be able to understand you, and if I can't understand something, I can't flow it.

-If you want me to vote for you on an argument, it should be in summary and final focus, and not just in a blippy extension. I want you to actually extend the warrants for your arguments.

-I would prefer final focus to be big-picture. I want you to tell me why I should vote for you.

-While I try to understand technical debate terms, I might not immediately know what debate jargon means. If you are going to use it, explain it.

-Please give me a roadmap and signpost.

-Please don't be rude/swear/use offensive language.

-It would be nice if you read dates for your evidence.

LD
Judging Experience: 14 Years
High school coach, 10 years
High school policy debate, 4 years.


Overview: in general, I prefer traditional value debate in LD. My judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, etc.
I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Be a debater, not a competitive librarian.


Plans: I will accept cases which offer some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being different from Policy—I don't think very narrow and specific plans are effective in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with something squirrely (and potentially abusive), that’s not ok. With that in mind, it's debaters' responsibility to point out that their opponent is running squirrely/abusive plan.


Kritiks: I'll accept them.


Values/ Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. You should have cards in your framework.


Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing.


Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.

Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.).

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

I'm open to any arguments as long as they are run well and make sense, but will not grant you the argument if you do not execute it well. I’ve done XC, PF, LD and Congress so I am comfortable with all sorts of styles of debate, speed, and ideas.

Something that I specifically value is warranting arguments. It is extremely hard for me to vote you up if you cannot explain your evidence to me. For me to evaluate the argument, the team must explain to me why the facts are important in context to the debate, and how they were derived. Logical and analytical arguments are all fair game, and much appreciated. With that being said, if you want me to evaluate a decision based on important pieces of evidence, make sure you keep referencing the evidence and highlight it throughout the debate.

Because I am a very flow judge, make sure you extend arguements from the rebuttle, to the summary, and finally, to the final focus or else it is very hard for me to evaluate the arguement as a reason to vote for you. 

Apart from that, I’m quite lenient in terms of theory as long as it is fair to the other team; usually if there are three or more conditional arguments, I’ll consider a vote for theory.

I don't flow cross-ex, but use it to persuade me. If an arguement arises from the cross-ex, make sure you repeat it in your speech. 

Also, there's no need to extend your case in the rebuttle. The rebuttle is only for rebutting the opposing case. 

As for speed, as long as both sides are okay with spreading, so am I. Just make sure you slow down during the analytics, taglines and framework! 

Debbie Eisenstadt

Golden Desert 2016 Judging Information

I am a long time judge of debate and forensics. I judged public forum, policy debate and individual events from 2003-2008 but took a hiatus once my children were out of the activity. I'm returning to judge this weekend because I love debate and want to give back to the community for all it has done for my children. So, keep in mind that while I have judged lots of debates over the years, I have been out of the activity for a while. I will take good notes on the arguments in the debate and make an informed decision based on the arguments presented, but please do not treat public forum like policy debate. I used to be an okay flow at semi-fast policy debates, but I have been out of the activity for some time and am judging public forum anticipating a slightly slower pace.

I'm happy to be here and happy to judge your debates!

Background:

During my high school debate career, I mostly participated in PF with several appearances in LD. Though I went to Nationals in oratory, I went on to join my university’s debate team where I participated in policy for a couple of years.

Over the course my graduate career, my love for philosophy has grown and I love to hear debates with critical theories involved. Balance is necessary in every debate and I do enjoy straight-up arguments as well. When determining a winner I look to the argument: what is dropped, what has greater impact, etc.

Do’s:

Be civil (as a former catty debater, I am redeeming myself by encouraging a healthy and civil debate atmosphere).

Speak clearly. If I cannot understand you I will first let you know with a verbal warning. After that warning I will let you know by putting my pen down. If I cannot understand you I cannot flow your argument.  Though speed can be important do not substitute it for clarity.

Make sure communication devices are disabled (mostly email and chats). 

Don’ts:

Over-extend prep time. If you are going paperless, prep time starts the moment I give you the okay and ends the moment you pull your drive out to give to your opponent.

I have been judging speech and debate for 1.5 years as a community judge. I have judged more than 50 rounds of various forms of debate. In each case, I strive to flow the round and make a decision based on the arguments in the round.  

Here are my preferences:

1. Speak at a normal rate of delivery. If you spread, I will not be able to flow your arguments.
2. Policy oriented affirmatives and negative strategies are best. Kritikal arguments and debate theory, except topicality, are most often too poorly explained and developed for me to understand them and be able to vote on them.
3. Weighing arguments in rebuttals is important for me. Line-by-line argumentation in the 2NR and 2AR is usually at the expense of evaluating the arguments more generally.

Lately I have been exposed to K affs which I don't quite grok. If you want to run some thing like that make sure you let me know how it relates to the resolution. 

I participated in high school debate from 2006-2010. I was involved in Policy Debate for pretty much 4 years and dabbled in Public Forum my senior year. I graduated from UCSD with a degree in Political Science. Since then I have been judging debate tournaments for the Golden Desert Speech & Debate League and now judging virtual tournaments for Millburn HS. I guess you could call me a flay judge?

You can add me to the e-mail chain: ko.christine35@gmail.com

Overall, I am open to any type of argument as long as it is well executed. Debate what you know and do well with. If I had to make a list of my preferences, it would most likely be:
1) LARP because of my policy background
1.5) Ks
2) T/FW
3) Theory
4) Phil/Tricks

I am also comfortable with speed. I will call "clear" once, and if there continues to be a problem, I will verbally tell you. I would suggest not going full speed because there can be delays in audio and mic problems with debates online. Overall, have fun and be courteous!

Hoon Ko

Philosophy:

I am a more old school judge. I will be open to all arguments but those I am not familiar with, if the debaters could explain fully their arguments, warrants, links, it would help me to judge the round fairly and completely. Also, I may not flow all your arguments if you go full speed - if you can slow down a bit, I'll be able to flow your arguments. Enunciation and clarity will help a lot, as will pausing at the right times.

I have not judged on the topic this year, so I am not familiar at all with the affs/arguments.

I love solid, full analysis and support for claims. That doesn't have to be empirical evidence, but the more specifics, the better. At the same time, I love framing and weighing and big picture analysis as well.

I'm not familiar with most kritiks, but I will be open to them, and if well explained, I will be able to evaluate the arguments. Please assume I know nothing about the kritik or the norms for judging them but I will listen to your arguments if well explained. If you refer to terms or arguments very quickly, as if everyone knows them in kritiks, I will not know what you are arguing, and I can't vote on what I don't understand.

I am more familiar with policy arguments and I love a great case debate. I also love a great T debate.

Congress Paradigm:

I did congress for 2 years and judge it regulary.

Looking for strong clash with supporting contentions and how well you answer and ask CX questions.

I do not care how many speeches you give. You will not get extra points the more you speak on a topic. Get your point accross the first time so I can hear everyone's views not the same person

All in all, state reasonable evidence and be sure to make new arguments to facilitate the debate.

Remember this is a DEBATE, not a friendly get together. So if someone blocks you from speaking, I consider that strategy.

Good Luck 

Students need to speak slowly and distinctly.  Want to see clear framework.

Be respectful of each other.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
5. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
6. I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I have judged policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum for 5 years into the national level, supporting my son in debating not only in Idaho, but Nevada, Utah, Washington and California. Spreading is allowed; speaks will reflect judge’s comprehension. I am open to any kind of approach—topicality, Ks, etc.; however, I won’t do the debate work for you. Tell me what I am judging on and why your arguments outweigh/have greater impacts than your opponent, with links and warrants to your evidence to give the justification why I should prioritize your impacts over your opponents.

Please give roadmaps; just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time."

I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence) judge. In general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Any position that tries to argue that sexism, racism, heteronormality, or any other form of bigotry is ethically defensible or even permissible will be dropped. Arguments that are not quite this vile, but have an easy slide to becoming them include: the impact to oppression must be warranted, you must prove why oppression is bad, or arguments placing the blame for oppression on its survivors. It’s likely that you will make that slide unintentionally, and so I recommend avoiding these types of arguments just as strongly.

I am a parent judge, but I have been judging the National Circuit PF for five years and judged 600+ rounds (including TOC semifinals). I am scientist so if you are making science arguments please make sure you understand the science..

How to win my ballot

• Speak clearly
• Extend arguments- not cards
• Focus the debate to what you are winning
• Keep theory reserved for actual abuse
• Keep Ks in policy
• Keep aliens and zombies for bad movies and out of debate
• Summary in line with final focus
• Be polite
• Have your evidence ready (you have 1 minute)

How to get good speaks

• Make good arguments
• Make good choices
• Don't yell
• Don't argue with me

Pet Peeves

• Arguing with me after the round- I GIVE SPEAKS AFTER I GIVE MY RFD FOR THIS REASON

Updated (06/29/2022)

Currently an IP lawyer. If i am judging, it is because i owe someone a favor.

Overview:

Ill say "what" if i didnt hear/understand what you said

PF:

a decade worth of national circuit experience. former national competitor. former top 10 PF coach. Ill disclosed if you want. time yourselves. 

CX/LD:

Love a good theory debate but i love a good debate on the merits (blame the pfer in me) i wont blame you for striking me lmao

Background:

• State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
• Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
• Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college. Post-graduation I coached for my alma mater for 5 years.
• Presently, I am a management consultant specializing in data analytics for government clients and I have my own side gig doing oratory, analytics and strategy consulting see petsasconsulting.com.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

• N/A

What I expect/prefer:

• In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is received.
• The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something mutually exclusive to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponent's arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
• As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal, then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
• I do not flow CX. It is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponents and seek out contradictions in their line of argumentation. If you give a speech the whole time, then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
• I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important argument comes down to economic impacts and their opponents most important argument is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
• I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguments, then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
• Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow that isn't the top of one side.
• If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" without providing new evidence or impact calculus at the end when your opponents haven't attacked it yet, then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
• I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

My PF/LD paradigm is at the bottom.

World Schools Debate Tournament Paradigm:

I am the head coach of Team Golden Desert and the returning co-Chair of Worlds at Nats. We have been at least 4-2 in prelims at all National tournaments, and been in outrounds of Dallas, SLC, Ft. Lauderdale, Dallas (the second one), Online, Louisville, and Phoenix. We engage in all Webbernars/webinars to prepare for the National invitational. I have judged Semifinals multiple times.

I flow on a spreadsheet to keep track of both arguments and points throughout the round. I score at the end of every speech, although I do occasionally award or detract points based on POIs. My decision will be ready almost immediately upon the end of the round, though I may take a moment to gather what I wish to say to you about why the decision is that way.

I will penalize you for not adhering to a split. There should be new content in the second speech.

I will weigh your content on validity, reliability, and strength. Poor evidence will result in poor content scores, regardless of whether or not your opponents expose these flaws. Their choice not to expose them affects their scores too, but your speech is scored before they speak.

I expect the Proposition team to offer a Burden and lay the ground for the debate. I expect this ground to be based upon the general understanding of the debate. Squirrely ground is not OK. However, I expect the Opposition to reply to the Proposition's burden, even if they decide to persuade me that it was squirrely and attempt to re-establish the ground.

In motions that suggest a mechanism/model, I would like to hear one from the Proposition, but do not require it. If the Opposition has a counter-mechanism, they should offer it *only* if doing so makes the debate stronger, and still maintains clash, not to attempt to draw the Proposition into a corner. The Opposition should be prepared for the Proposition to adopt the proposed mechanism, if Proposition offered none, or to subsume the Opposition's mechanism if it is simply an addendum to what has been said.

If you choose to offer a counter-mechanism, it is your burden to prove that it will work. The Proposition does get access to a certain amount of fiat because they have to attempt to accomplish the motion. So, if the motion is "This House would break up Big Tech," and the Proposition tells me "We do not have to prove that governments would pass legislation breaking up Big Tech, we simply have to prove that it would be a good idea," I'm going to buy that argument. The current political climate may view breaking up Big Tech as anathema, but they didn't write the motion, so I have to cut them some slack. The Opposition, however, has no access to fiat on a counter-mechanism because they are introducing it into the debate. Therefore, if the Opposition says "We propose instead that we would put in place regulations like A, B, and C, and create a position to oversee Big Tech like X," that now becomes something that the Opposition has to prove they could potentially do. Many things that are argued as counter-mechanisms, though, can just be points of advocacy. In the case above, the Opposition could simply say, "Regulation is better than breaking up Big Tech, here's some examples" and they're making an argument, not a mechanism. Those regulations already exist in the status quo, and the Opposition is frequently just saying that we shouldn't make a specific change to the status quo. 99.99% of the time, making the argument is going to be better than trying to get fancy with a Counter-mechanism.

I expect your delivery to sound natural. There should not be a bunch of debate jargon, or a debate about how, theoretically, the ideal debate on this topic should happen. I do not expect to hear cards, or speed, and relying upon the words of others to carry your speech or exceeding natural delivery deliberately and consistently will be penalized.

I appreciate really strong POIs, and I do not expect them to always be questions.

I expect to hear great crystallization in the 3rd speech and reply. This means that arguments may end up being irrelevant to the end-game, and that's absolutely OK. Picking the important arguments is a really important skill and will be rewarded as such.

I don't like knocking. Please avoid it unless it's a truly amazing point.

I don't like requesting POIs in an obviously disruptive manner. I completely understand wanting to break the flow. However, being a jerk is being a jerk.

If you think a reasonable person could see what you are about to do as racist, sexist, ableist, jingoist, ethnocentrist, or in any other way prejudiced, Do Not Say It! Your score will drop precipitously. There is a difference between supporting your side and doing any of these things.

If you are talking over your opponent, ignoring your opponent, or being verbally or physically dismissive toward your opponent, there had better be an amazingly good reason for it. If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, you are doing them and yourself an extraordinary disservice, and you are costing yourself copious amounts of speaker points.

Number of Years Coaching: 15 years, all forms of debate--I also debated in HS and coach the Golden Desert World Schools team
NWCTA Coach
Number of Years Judging: 14, primarily PF, LD, and WSD


LD/PF Philosophy:

I expect you to set up the framework by which I should be judging the round. If you fail to do this, even if you think your value argument was wildly compelling, I may decide it subsumes to something else. If you think your value argument is tantamount, tell me that. Crystallizing the round is extremely important.

The framework of your debate should not be about how unfair the structure of the debate is to your side. You chose to enter into debate. You knew the rules. If you'd like them to change, write an editorial for the Rostrum. (NB: You may include observations about how the debate should be weighed/viewed, as these are important to the round, but if you're not arguing for or against the resolution at some point, I am extremely unlikely to pick you up.)

I prefer that LD debate not be conducted at lightning speed. I don't even like my policy rounds conducted that way. Debate is supposed to be about clearly articulating arguments, and if I can't understand you, you aren't doing that. Having a lot of evidence is admirable, but it's not nearly as important as having compelling evidence with clear analysis. You don't win by picking and arranging cards. You win by explaining how these pieces of evidence create a compelling rationale. Cases without clear impact analysis and links will lose in front of me, even if they have 20 pages of citations.

LD/PF Paradigm:
If you don't extend your arguments, they will drop off my flow.

If you plan to run off-case or performative arguments, it is your burden to explain how they link to the debate on the resolution.

I expect you to time one another. Holding each other accountable is important.

I try not to call for evidence, but I expect you to be prepared to hand any evidence requested to myself or your opponents ASAP. If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will definitely hold this against you, and I may start charging you prep time to find it.

Please don't ask me to "Drop the debater." I'll drop your opponent's arguments if you've proven that they're bad, but I'm not going to drop them. You don't mean to be making an ad hom attack, but you basically are. If you are, in fact, meaning to make an ad hominem attack because your opponent is being offensive, then that would be the only time I find this terminology appropriate.

If you are talking over your opponent, ignoring your opponent, or being verbally or physically dismissive toward your opponent, there had better be an amazingly good reason for it. If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, you are doing them and yourself an extraordinary disservice, and you are costing yourself copious amounts of speaker points.

If you think a reasonable person could see what you are about to do as racist, sexist, ableist, jingoist, ethnocentrist, or in any other way prejudiced, Do Not Say It! Your score will drop precipitously. There is a difference between supporting your side and doing any of these things.

1.  My opinions on 'the K'

Aff: This is policy debate, and I prefer policy arguments. Please read a plan that is relevant to the topic. It's fine to be critical of the topic (and of patriarchy, capitalism, racism..ect), go ahead and include critiques in your plan or permutation of the plan, however verbally condemning the topic and throwing it to the wind is not grounds for a 'W' if I am your judge.

Neg: go ahead and read a Critical argument. Strategically it makes sense, you are making the 2A do more work, and hopefully what your saying actually applies to the Aff. Please don't ONLY read critical arguments, if you have so much to complain about, then you better propose some kind of counter plan that embodies your alternative interpretation. 

Ultimately: I'm going to vote based on who makes the best arguments, and covers all their bases (i.e. don't completely drop an argument or forget to respond). The above statements are brief guidelines for what kind of arguments I'd like to see in the round.

2. Cross Examination: use CX strategically, be respectful to your opponent, and humor (tastefully applied) is appreciated. Bickering is not ok, don't do it.

3. Spreading: Speak clearly, if you are bad at spreading (i.e. gasping for air, sputtering and mumbling), don't do it. It would behoove you to try, and a more tactful choice at that point would be to make Critical argument against the use of spreading in debate. 

My background:
If you feel this is relevant to how you frame your case in the round, I encourage you to find me on Linked In.

Public Forum and L/D Judging Philosophy

I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but if you fail to critically analyze the topic (and IMPACTS), then I will be forced to in my decision. You may not like the way I analyze impacts if you fail to, so do it for me to avoid frustration with my decision. I debated LD 3 years, and PF 1 year. 

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it. (If you think I need to look at your opponents card, or you want me to see your card at the end of the round, DO NOT expect me to analyze it the same way you did. I will do my best to understand what you were doing with it, but if I see you are clearly misrepresenting the evidence, I will take the card for what it actually is and evaluate from there.)

Value/Criterion Debate (Mainly for L/D)
One of the best ways to win my ballot, especially on the criterion. Explain to me why your criterion outweighs if you have a different one than your opponent. If you have the same criterion then explain to me why your contentions will do that better than your opponent.

Contentions
I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument.

Rebuttals
Address every argument your opponent makes. Obviously this can be difficult because you are low on time. If you don't address it, and they extend it, they win that argument. If you don't address it and they don't extend it, I'll think and decide if I buy it. Essentially, the rebuttals are your chance to tell me how to think about something. When you don't I start thinking. We may not agree but if you don't tell me how to think then what else can I do.

Voting Issues
Summarising the round before your time is up on your last speech is excellent. Why should i vote for you? What impacts do you have? What will happen if I vote for your opponent? These are all valuable questions to help win my ballot.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.
Any questions?

jstackpo@asu.edu (subject line "Debate")

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

I have a wiki on judge philosophies,

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Swallow%2C+Jason

Undergraduate degree in Philosophy and in Rhetoric from UC Berkeley, and was on their Parli debate team. Also JD, NYU.

I'm a policy debater at UNLV, so I'm down with speed, weird args, classic case args, and pretty much anything you want to throw at me. On that same note, don't expect me to know the philosophy/arg you're running if you haven't explained it well. I most likely will get it, but I will disregard my prior knowledge for the sake of a fairer debate if it comes to that. You do you, I'm just here to objectively weigh the points in the debate.

*If I'm not judging you in a policy round, the same applies. Give me something to vote on in your rebuttal speeches. Voters, framework, role of the ballot, I win because are all a thing and they are effective.*

Speaks:

I give pretty high speaks to begin with. I like funny jokes, I love puns (good ones please), if you can make me laugh I'll definitely add points. Don't worry if you can't be funny, I'm not, so I won't dock you for it.

BE CLEAR. I've noticed people trying too hard to go too fast and it's never pretty. I will yell clear or slow if needed. The second time I have to tell you is when I'll start docking speaks. 

 There's only one thing I'd automatically dock hard for. If you say an offensive term, and we all know what those are, I'm going to warn you, then I'll take a few points. I don't care about cursing even though I'm sure your coaches would, I won't dock points for cursing, but I will for insults and degrogatory terminology. If you do it after I warn you, you're getting a 0. 

Most of all, HAVE FUN. Debate is an enjoyable activity and sometimes I feel like most of you are walking into a round looking like you're heading to the executioners. I will do my best to make the round an educational one. My philosophy is that if you walk out of a debate round knowing more than you come in, winning or losing matters much less. Enjoy yourselves y'all.

Judging Philosophy: Christopher Wheatley - Aspen HS

I would describe myself as a, ‘critic of argument’. 35 years of teaching and coaching has led me to a judge philosophy which I characterize as, “you debate and I decide.”

I will always prefer for debaters to debate out the epistemological and procedural assumptions advanced by both debaters in arriving at the decision-making calculus and perspectives to be applied to the argumentation in the debate.

That said, I will give one (1) win and one (1) loss in each debate. I will not accept arguments attempting to change the times and/or order of speeches. I will give a loss and zero points to anyone caught fabricating evidence.

‘Evidence’ is only evidence when it establishes why we want to hear this person speaking on this issue. Thus, questions of source credibility (quals) and recency (date) should be clearly established when entering the ‘evidence’ into the round. If you don’t know who is speaking and/or why they are speaking, then it’s probably not evidence.

Presumption can exist on either side of the proposition but is probably associated with the least change.

Values should be compared and contrasted with your opponent’s value. If you are both claiming the same value, tell me who gets more of it quicker. I also believe LD debaters should explain how their value is reflected by a criteria carefully developed and applied to said value.

Students should ask questions in cross examination and NOT make speeches.

Avoid logical fallacies and avoid slandering your opponent. Humor is good.

I would suggest a rate of delivery consistent with the rate of discourse in a philosophy seminar class.