Reka (Ree-kah) Fink (she/her)

Put me on the email chain: reka.fink@gmail.com

Past: Policy debater at the University of North Texas and Edina High School, assistant debate coach at the Blake School.

Generally: To win a flow, tell me why your impacts should come first - this applies to critical and policy strats, as well as procedurals. I enjoy watching a good discussion of the topic (topicality was one of my favorite arguments as a debater). I think debate is a game, and any theoretical questions should center on who makes the game better, more accessible, more fair, etc. I have a high threshold on theory.

Critical Arguments: Not my area of expertise, but I have general knowledge about most critical positions. I don’t believe teams should always have to defend a policy option.

Fair warning: I'll pretty much toss everything here out the window the instant you're an unpleasant or disrespectful jerk in-round, including being a smarmy wanna-be comedian looking for dumb jabs at your opponent.

Stopped coaching and judging "full time" in 2018 to move back into academia. It was a healthy move, but my flow speed has tanked since then. Deal with that.

TOC top speaker in 2006. Former PF coach and active judge. Philosophy, Art and Theatre degrees.

Easy Mode: I disclose results of every round unless attacked by tab not to, and even then just ask me in the hallway before tab yells at me twice. However, you'll know before the end of the round pretty easily what's up just by paying attention. I'll laugh at patent absurdity and scowl at obtuse knuckleheads. My facial expressions detail *exactly* how I feel about what you're doing in every moment. This is bad community theatre facial expressions kind of stuff, people. Use it and react to alter what you do and run in the round.

PF tl;dr-->Expect second team to respond to attacks on case in rebuttal. Summary should crystallize the round, not be a rebuttal expansion. Will not vote on morally reprehensible water tester arguments like 'genocide good' or 'climate science is a liberal lie'. Will vote down on reprehensible decorum including blatant sexism and harassment. Default neg on presumption of affirmative burden of truth/net outcome or in case of insoluable flow.

LD tl;dr-->Somebody entered me in the pool by accident or desperation. I still have a philosophy degree if you're willing to slow the heck down...but I've honestly enjoyed nearly every round I've been in.

CX tl;dr-->Did it and moved on. Not here by choice. Do professional theatre and art criticism, and did Theatre of the Oppressed with Boal at UNO, and continue to be a Joker as part of pedagogical practice. Not impressed by shenanigans. Slow it down but don't insult my intelligence on argument structure.

Longform (PF primary)

It will forever be my goal to treat debate as a fundamentally educational activity. If I have one goal every tournament, it's to make at least one team know that they got the best possible feedback and push forward they've ever gotten from a judge and member of the debate community. We are here to make sure debaters come out the other side of a round as better students and people.

I am happy to see PF move in new and intelligent directions. Willing to listen to direct-clash TV-ready Ted Turner Debate as well as traditional policy maker standpoints, kritiks, theory, and performance elements if presented clearly within the confines of PF time structure, but recognize that you still have to make the round at least productive and educational for all involved rather than attempting to exclude or undercut other teams with a blatant attempt at LD or Policy approaches, and only 4 or 2 minutes to present them. This new-ish nat-style, hyperdismissive wanna-be technical jargon-fest is both annoying and utterly embarrassing in how much it gets wrong in trying to pull from LD and CX. Stop it. Use your time to build a core narrative with solid comparative analysis, not card dumps and baby's-first-topicality.

I hold to a line-by-line flow and expect second team to respond to attacks on their case in addition to engaging the other team's case. Turns and dropped arguments are voters if presented by a team, but in cases of competing voters: theory-framework and direct impact calculations should be done by the debaters. If I end up with null arguments that lack interaction analysis I will look elsewhere before coming back to pick apart the argument interaction myself.

Framework for round structure and impact weight should carry with it minimum standards of preference vs competing frameworks, be it educational, grounds based, or decision process justified. Competing frameworks should not drown out the remainder of the round, especially if you're going to go evidence heavy or engage in competing ideologies. You can still win the round if you accept your opponent's framework if you meet it and can offer comparative analysis that places you in a preferable voting position...and most of the time counter framing is just bickering in PF. Pick one and win everywhere else. If it's truly abusive, it should be an easy call to standards to say so and move on or prefer yours.

Summary should be THE place to present the clarity of your round vision, and make solid decisions on what the round has become, what can be disregarded, and where it should end up. No new arguments [and ideally no new evidence] from here on out. Final focus is an opportunity to pull from the summary vision and perform, crystallize, and leave no question on your side winning.

Aff must show, at minimum, the truth of the resolution. In cases of "on balance" resolutions, you must engage in comparative analysis to develop the status of this truth. Magnitude, time frame, probability, and threshold offer basic elements to compare two impacts.

I will pref neg if aff fails to meet minimum burden of resolution, or if round is left in an inconclusive position/null impact state. Don't expect great speaker points for anyone if that second situation comes up.

So long as the tournament/circuit rules doesn't explicitly forbid it: competitive alternative advocacy is fine by me. [Facing NSDA rules on plans and counterplans though, just follow them explicitly] Permutations by aff against alternative actions by neg are just tests of competition unless you push for wider terms of impact from the perm. However, if aff can show that neg alternatives are non-competitive vs plan/resolutional action, no amount of competing 'solvency' can push neg for a win without them also presenting a net harm to aff that has been dealt with via comparative analysis. Hey aff! Topical counter or alt with no net benefit or harms from neg? Just coopt it, and we can be cool.

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull render a final ballot decision on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

Generally start at 28 on speaker points and move up or down. 30 is perfection in speaking, argument structure, logic and overall sense of "this is what is good about a PF debater". 26 and below are reserved for refusal to engage in clash or logical analysis while simultaneously being a totally unpleasant individual in terms of respect towards your opponent or myself. Speaker points are an opportunity to send a message of the kinds of interactions that will and will not be acceptable in a safe and educational environment.

Enjoy yourselves and enjoy the event as a whole. Keep it respectful, smart, and funny within the round and you'll make it a better day for everyone involved.

About me: I debated for 3 years for Omaha Westside. I go to UNL now and coach at Millard North in Omaha. This is my fourth year out. I am prepared and willing to judge most any argument- in high school I ran arguments all across the spectrum, from politics DAs to affs without plan texts.

Non-traditional debate/affirmatives: I am probably a good judge for your aff without a plan text/non-traditional aff. I ran these types of arguments my senior year of high school. That being said, just because I did it doesn’t mean I’ll vote for your style and argument automatically. Tell me what your performance or advocacy means and why I should favor you. Don’t bother no-linking positions that obviously link to you. Debaters often aren’t overly shifty when they are passionate about the argument.

I am very familiar with high theory-based arguments and ran them frequently in high school. I am less familiar with identity arguments.

Kritiks: Ran them regularly in high school and I really enjoy a 1-off k debate. That being said, I think making a one-off k debate actually relate to the affirmative is extremely important. Obviously case-specific kritiks are the best for this, but more generic criticisms are fine if they are debated in the context of the affirmative. It is not very educational to talk on and on about your pet philosopher and never engage with the substance of the affirmatives you are negating.

Perms are big for me because it’s important to prove why the kritik is a reason to reject the specific affirmative. Case turns and arguments extrapolated from the kritik are impressive and will lead to good speaks.

If you are reading obviously contradictory positions with your k (like a cap bad k and an econ good DA) I will likely hold you to a higher standard to prove that condo is good and that your kritik alt works. It will tough, for example, for me to accept that we should reject capitalism at a personal level if you just told me we need to save the economy from collapse.

I consider myself pretty familiar with most kritik literature that is read in high school debate. When I debated, kritiks I ran frequently included cap, Heidegger, and Bataille. I am least familiar with psychoanalysis, so if you are reading it please make sure you go beyond the common buzzwords in your explanations.

Counterplans/Disads: Definitely. I find traditional policy-style debate to be educational and worthwhile. I like to see unique, aff-specific CPs. Well-researched and executed PICs are fun watch. A good politics DA debate is one of the best things that can happen in a round.

Framework: Kritiks probably aren’t cheating. Framework is your vision for the round and debate in general, which means you can’t just kick it if there’s offense sitting on it. I understand that sometimes there just aren't other answers to be made and an exclusive framework is the best and only thing that applies to the non-traditional aff you are negating, but a lot of the time there are more effective and more educational arguments to read.

Topicality: I default to reasonability if no one tells me anything else, but this obviously will change if you tell me to evaluate the T debate in another way. While obviously important in all of debate, offense on T is really important for me, especially for the aff in a situation where you have competing interpretations. For T arguments that serve the function of framework arguments, see the framework section above.

Theory: My default setting is to reject the argument, not the team. If you want something different, really commit significant to theory. It’s good for your case if you can show in-round abuse. Limited conditionality is probably good, plan-minus PICs are probably good. CPs probably don’t compete off of certainty. Obviously all of these defaults can change based on what happens in the debate.

Speed: I can handle pretty much any speed. Remember there is a difference between reading fast well and just reading fast. The latter can hurt your speaks. If you’re unclear, I will say “clear” a couple times and then you’re on your own.

Paperless: Prep stops when you are done prepping and just flashing. I'm all for encouraging paperless debate, but that being said don't be a jerk and steal prep or take unreasonably long to flash. If this happens then I will start running prep while you flash.

If you have any questions that weren’t answered here, please ask. I like talking to debaters.

Other stuff:
Tag-team cross-x is fine, but never answering cross-x questions will hurt your speaks.
I value spin over words on paper. Everyone can read cards, not everyone can make good arguments on their own.
Humor is a plus.
Be assertive, but respectful.
Most of all, debate is something you should enjoy, learn from and feel passionate about. If you show those things in your debating, you’ll do well in front of me.

Speaking:

-I give speaker points entirely on performance, not argumentation.

-Focus on clarity. I can't flow it if I can't understand it.

-Don't speed read. Faster than conversational is fine, but only if you're enunciating very clearly.

-Don't assume I understand jargon or obscure philosophical terms. Give clear definitions and don't muddle the debate with pedantry.

Argumentation:

-Debate is a contest of logic. It is a game about who can best communicate and defend a complex perspective using logic and facts. Do not change the assumptions of debate to suit your purposes. The round must be resolutional. Do not run Kritiks or metadebate theory (unless your opponent is being abusive).

-I will weigh contentions depending on which provided framework is most prominent for the round. You do not lose the round because you drop your framework; it's perfectly acceptable to conceptually combine frameworks or have them subsumed. I love it when debaters agree on what the standards should be.

Public Forum Paradigm

Defense needs to be in summary. If it's not in summary, I'm less likely to consider it in final focus.

Time allocation is also super important. There needs to be a balance between explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts.

Don't be offensive.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

UPDATED FOR 2020-21 SEASON:

INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAINS: alan DOT tannenwald AT GMAIL DOT COM.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE PARADIGM:

SHORT VERSION: Flow-leaning "flay" judge. Go slow - speed does not work via Zoom. No jargon. Signpost. Weigh (that means compare) and give me a weighing framework early in round. I need narrative and warrants - please extend them through every speech and into final focus. Summary and Final Focus should be voting issues with weighing framework overview at beginning. Rebuttal should be line-by-line. Be careful with theory and kritiks, as I am generally hostile to both.

Please let me know before the round if you require any accommodations but don’t take advantage of it either. I will try to avoid using pronouns unless competitors disclose preferred pronouns prior to the start of the round.

LONGER VERSION:

BIO: I coached PF, Speech and Congressional Debate for Newton South High School in Massachusetts from 2011 until 2019, at which point I retired to devote more time to my family. I competed in Congressional Debate in high school, APDA parliamentary debate in college and moot court in law school. In real life, I am a corporate attorney for a software company. My former students would describe me as being a flow-leaning "flay" judge since I am not up to speed on the latest PF tech jargon. I've judged late elim rounds at most national tournaments, including the final round at NSDA Nationals in 2018.

SUMMARY SPEECHES: I do not want line-by-line summaries or summaries that are like mini-rebuttal speeches. Your summary should consist of voting issues with a brief framework overview at the beginning. First speaking teams do not need to "frontline" defense in summary; however, if one of your voting issues involves one of your defensive arguments/blocks, you need to extend that defense into your Summary speech.

SPEED: I really struggle with speed, especially with online debates. I can flow slightly faster than a conversational speed but not much more than that. If you go too fast, I will miss things on my flow.

WEIGHING/FRAMEWORK/NARRATIVE: I want comparative weighing, framework and a cohesive narrative. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them and if you do not provide supporting warrants for them. Please extend the warrants and narrative into summary and final focus and don’t lose track of the resolution you are debating when you get to those speeches. Please try to clearly introduce your preferred weighing framework early in the round (top of case and/or top of rebuttal). If you do not provide a framework, I will use my own to evaluate the round (I default to utilitarianism). BUT don't make the round into a framework debate. The best way to win my ballot is to win on your framework and your opponent's framework.

I caution you against spending too much time debating about how to interpret the resolution unless your opponents are doing something super abusive. As a general rule, these types of arguments detract from your narrative.

OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS/ARGUING ABOUT EVIDENCE WHEN CALLING FOR CARDS: Please signpost during your speech instead of giving off-time roadmaps. Please don't argue about what evidence says when calling for cards.

JARGON: I really do not want to hear debate jargon in a PF round. I should not need a glossary or dictionary to judge PF. If you are going to use terms like "terminal defense," you need to explain to me what it means as you would to a lay judge.

FINAL FOCUS: *Slow down* and give me voting issues and weighing analysis. Warrants, links and impacts should all be clearly extended. Please make sure all of your voting issues are in your final focus. If you don't extend something into Final Focus, I will assume that you don't want me to vote on it.

CROSSFIRE: I usually don't flow crossfire, as I try to use at as a time to evaluate how your arguments are interacting with each other. If something happens in crossfire that you want to be a voting issue, please mention it in summary (unless it comes up in grand crossfire) and final focus.

MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE: Please don't misrepresent evidence. I will dock your speaker points if I call for evidence and discover that you are misrepresenting what it says and, if it's a voting issue, I will give you the loss. If I call for evidence, I am likely to want to see the original source material and NOT just the cut card. Over the years, I have seen many instances where card cuttings have misrepresented evidence and, as a result, I am predisposed to distrust them.

When reading evidence, I don't require exact quotes (especially in rebuttal, summary and FF) but I do expect accurate paraphrasing and for quotes not to be taken out of context. If your evidence doesn't support your contention without your drawing your own conclusions about what the evidence means, make sure you are clear that the conclusions you are drawing are your own conclusions and provide a warrant for those conclusions.

Here is an illustration of what I consider to be misrepresenting evidence:

Saying that your evidence says that, as a general rule, increasing funding for mental health care by 10% reduces homelessness by 5% when your evidence only says that increasing funding for mental health care by 10% reduced homelessness in Boston by 5%.

As a corollary to this, since I take allegations of misuse of evidence seriously, please don't make blippy rebuttals in which you falsely accuse your opponents of misrepresenting evidence as a defensive strategy.

THEORY: Theory argumentation really doesn't belong in PF. The only situation in which I will vote on theory is if a team is engaging in behavior or argumentation that is just intolerably abusive. To win a theory debate with me as your judge, you need to (a) clearly identify the abuse with specificity and (b) clearly explain how the abuse precludes a fair debate. To discourage people from running theory arguments, I will automatically dock 1 speaker point for each debater who runs a theory argument that becomes a voting issue and loses. I will not vote on disclosure theory (unless there is some misdisclosure that you can prove), speaker points theory or any other similar nonsense that is being imported from LD and Policy. Substantive, resolution-based debate is mandatory for you to win my ballot.

KRITIKS: I am ambivalent about Ks in PF because I don’t think the speech times and judging pools allow for them to be run and adjudicated properly. For me to be able to vote on a K, I need to feel that you are actually engaging with the literature and warranting analysis and not just making a cheap attempt at winning a round. HOWEVER, no one should be forced to lose a round simply because of the side of the resolution they were assigned to debate. if you are running a K that forces the other side to make oppressive arguments to win on the flow, I view that as counter to the spirit of public forum debate and exclusionary. Advocate for change - but do so in a way to allows for actual debate and keeps the round accessible to everyone. Also, substantive, resolution-based debate is mandatory for you to win my ballot. If you don't like the resolution, take it up with the Topic Wording Committee outside of the tournament setting and don't compete. Do not run a K in which you claim that a resolution is X, Y or Z and then run a non-topical case.

BE RESPECTFUL: I REALLY hate it when debaters hold up their timers when their opponents are going overtime, roll their eyes, mock their opponents, and make ad hominem attacks against each other.

SPEAKER POINTS: 28 is my baseline for an average debater. I give out maybe 1-2 30's per tournament.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE PARADIGM:

This was my event in high school so I have some strong opinions about it. Analysis and quality of evidence are key. But use of both shouldn't be at the expense of your delivery, which should be at a conversational pace and not involve yelling, screaming or speed-reading. To get my "1", you should aim to be the "refreshing voice of reason" in the chamber. In judging, I typically weigh analysis/evidence 66% vs. delivery 33%. I penalize harshly for rehash, especially if you try to extend one-sided debate in order to sneak an extra speech in. You are much better off giving fewer original speeches than multiple speeches that repeat other debaters' arguments. After a couple of cycles of debate, you should be clashing with and referring to other debaters' arguments. I don't like gimmicks or cheesy jokes unless they are especially clever and tasteful. During cross-ex, you should ask thought provoking questions that illustrate the flaws in your colleagues' arguments but you should not be virulently attacking them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD/POLICY PARADIGM:

I almost never judge these events. However, if I am judging you in one of them, treat me as a lay judge and don't spread. LD'ers - I am looking for traditional LD, not post-2002 circuit-style LD. Note that I was a Philosophy Minor (almost a major) in college so I am fairly familiar with most famous Western philosophers and their writings, as well as some Eastern philosophy. My views on progressive argumentation in LD are similar to my views about it in PF except that I may be more inclined to vote on a K in LD since the speech times allow for proper development of the arguments. That being said, topicality is mandatory for you to win my ballot, as is debating the actual resolution.

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

I am the current director of speech and debate at the Milwaukee School of Languages.

From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.

I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.

I would like to be on the email chain (hannanja@milwaukee.k12.wi.us), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you spread theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.

I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.

I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.

I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.

I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.

PF: if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary. A complete extension has a link and an impact, preferably with evidence for each. I prefer to make decisions based on clean flow-work; lacking a clean story on the flow, I will occasionally call for evidence to help resolve an issue; I often find myself assessing the 'risk of offense' at the end of rounds based on flow work, evidence quality, consistency of the story between summary and final focus, and the degree of opposition the argument received.

Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.

Any other specifics, please ask.

Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (if you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, it means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time, and for tournaments that have different speaker point norms.

A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.

A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.

A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.

A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.

A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.

Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.