Craig J. Albert
October 2016

I was a policy debater for Bronx Science (1971-1975) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975-1979). I flow the round and I vote based on the flow.

I am the quintessential blank slate (whiteboard); you are the chalk (dry erase marker).  Pretty much everything is debatable but you need to do the work; I will not do it for you. 

I like it when you show me that you are thinking about the round while you are in the round.  Issue perception and flexibility count for a lot.  Being able to take an argument from one part of the flow and apply it elsewhere is a great skill.

Left to my own devices in a PF round, and unless I am persuaded otherwise, I simply believe that I have been asked to decide whether the resolution is more likely true (in which case it is to be adopted) than false.  You are free to argue any paradigm or method of analysis that you please.  If the debaters do not argue a mode of analysis, then I will use a private, undisclosed mode when trying to weigh at the end.  Usually that involves trying to understand the arguments as meshing with one another and then weighing probabilities, benefits and harms.  It's a mistake, though, for the debaters to make the judge go to a default analysis mode.  As I have told decades worth of debaters, “Your job is to write the ballot for the judge; don’t trust the judge to write it on his own.”

I do take the rules seriously, so if you foolishly wanted me to abandon a rule, you would need to make an argument as to why. I encourage you to read the NSDA’s rules because they represent the starting point of the debate; you were invited to the tournament to debate under those rules and you accepted that invitation.   In other words, you could try to deviate and it might even succeed, but there would be some very heavy lifting involved and you probably would not have the time in which to do it. 

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as the current assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) and previously an adjunct LD coach for Lake Highland Prep (FL). I also was an instructor at NSD Philadelphia 2024.

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP/Policy: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary. Weighing in back half is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." Have fun and be nice.

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

I did PF for Walt Whitman and graduated in 2013. I coached at Whitman for threee years, and Riverdale Country School for one year

Speed and technical debate are both fine with me, but you need to be clear. This means signposting, warranting your arguments, and weighing explicitly. I am not going to do work for you, so if you don’t literally tell me why I should vote on something I will not vote on it. I am not going to do any analysis that you do not do for me in your speeches.

I am open to any type of argument. That being said, I can be easily persuaded by opponents’ claims that particular interpretations are unfair ways to view resolutions. If you do anything risky, you need to be able to A) defend why what you’re doing is fair and B) obviously win it if you want me to vote on it. The one caveat to this is if you run anything that is discriminatory in any way (racist, sexist, classist, etc.) I will get really, really angry. Please do not do this, I don’t want to hear your genocide is good contention even if you are down four and not breaking.

Summaries:

If you are first summary, I do not need you to extend defense on arguments that your opponents’ have not gotten to go back to in their rebuttal. If your opponents do not answer that defense in their summary, I am fine as having that as a reason not to vote for them on that argument as long as you extend/explain that they didn’t answer that response in your ff. Any offense you want to go for in final focus need to be in first summary though, including turns on their case (if you don’t extend the turn in your first summary, but extend it in final focus I can evaluate it as defense on their argument but I won’t vote on it).

If you are second summary, you know what your opponents are going for so my standard is a little higher. Any defense you want to extend in final focus need to be in your summary. Only exception to this is if your opponents switch what they are going for in their first final focus (don’t do this please), and you need to remind me that they never answered the defense you had put on that argument.

Weighing:

Weighing needs to be comparative or superlative in some way. The structure should generally be phrased as x is more important than y because or x is the mot important issue in the round because not just x is important because.

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.

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 06/04/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

TL;DR VERSION

I don't want to read your cards or be on your email evidence chain. I hate homework/spam.

I don't buy crazy low probability impacts like global warming and nuclear war unless you work hard for them: multiple warrants, proper link chains, and a demonstration that you've read more academic literature than I have is typically required. If you say "The impact is nuclear war: 100 million die" followed by author name and without any further warranting, you will likely lose.

Spread over 250 wpm: YOU DIE.

Read only author last names and year for super important/critical cards: YA DIE.

Last speech of any debate: focus on voting issues. If you continue/only debate the flow: YOU DIE DIE DIE.

Run BS Theory & Play Stupid Games: You win stupid prizes. And... YOU DIE.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's. I signed up to judge a debate not do extra reading homework.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence when it comes to your most key/consequential cards. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case.If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence. (Author last name + year is fine for small stuff)

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- Global Warming / Nuclear War / Extinction Impacts: Good luck with those. I rarely if ever buy any of those exaggerated / overblown / 1% probability impacts unless you explain thoroughly and in great detail how 10+ million plus people are going to die. You can't just say "China will get mad and nuke Taiwan and then we all die." I have a Chinese Tiger Mom. I've personally seen Chinese aggression up close: thrown slippers and passive-aggression hurt. They don't hurt that bad.

- Capitalism Ks: LOL!You're gonna read me something off of a Macbook Pro that you were given by your hired debate coach while competing for a private school that charges Stanford tuition prices. Didn't your parents drop you off at the tournament in a Tesla Model S? That nice suit you're wearing better not be Armani.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle. (I now donate in cash... don't make the same mistake I made kids!)

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning, not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event, so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading, but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments, otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech, which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29/below: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28/below: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27/below: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however, analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26/below: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

E

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Hello, I have not judged this semester. Please be kind to each other.

I am old and cannot flow speed particularly well but will do my best to keep up.

Theory is okay if it checks abuse, but I don't like it if it's frivolous. I will always caution that I may not follow Ks as well as you do, so read them at your own risk.

I will call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and reserve the right to disregard entire arguments if the evidence is particularly miscut.

Have fun!

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

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.

LD:

I cannot flow spreading, so please don't do it.

In making arguments you cannot skip any steps. I know how to evaluate debates, but I am new to LD, so there are lots of arguments that most LD judges know all about that I am unfamiliar with. That does not mean you can't run them in front of me - you just have to be able to fully explain everything part of the argument, avoid jargon where possible, and be crystal clear about why you winning it matters for the round.

PF

- Please time yourselves

- I appreciate concision, but I think evidence too often gets misconstrued when it's paraphrased. I understand paraphrasing is common now, so I reserve the right to check evidence at the end of the round even if the evidence is not challenged by the debaters (I won't look for holes in the evidence - I just want to make sure what was said matches the original writing).

- I accept logical defensive responses made in crossfire as part of the flow. Cross is still not for reading cards.

- I don't think defense needs to be extended in late round speeches unless it is answered. The alternative to this would be to allow extensions through ink, which is wrong.

- I try my best to flow. I won't vote for things I don't understand. I don't want to keep you in the dark about whether or not I understand something, so my face should give away when I am confused.

- If multiple arguments flow through to the end of the round and there isn't good, explicit weighing, I will vote for the argument that was best constructed/most persuasive to me. Since how I feel about arguments is pretty nebulous, you should weigh early and often. Do not leave it for the last moment. If you can't think of anything productive to do in crossfire, set up weighing mechanisms.

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

FEB 2020 NOTES:

1. When you read evidence about UBI being successful and the evidence is from experiments where recipients also received means-tested welfare, you should probably be aware of this when asked by an opponent.

2. Please don't yell at me. I shut down and struggle to listen to what you are trying to communicate when you scream at me in a round.

3. If you need a speech doc to advance your arguments in the round because you are communicating at a speed that alienates people who walk into the room then you should post that case publicly (not an email chain sent in round) prior to the round so the *public* forum can be prepared to debate you without spending their prep time reading a speech doc. Otherwise communicate at a speed accessible to the *public* forum.

Public Forum (Not PoFo - there is no O in Public) Paradigm

1. Framework is not a voter. It's a way to frame voters. Frame them.

2. Both sides will suprisingly win something. It's how those things interact that make the debate. Don't make me figure it out. Weigh. Clash. Give me something to prefer.

3. This may be a shock but I actually expect a debater to respond to the speech right before them. In other words, the second rebuttal ignoring the first means they are AVOIDING ACTUAL DEBATE. The first summary can feel free to then extend and explain why all those drops are important. It is probable that the second team will lose at that point if they forgot to address the first rebuttal's speech.

4. I WILL DROP A TEAM THAT IS UNCIVIL OR PLAYS EVIDENCE GAMES BEFORE EVALUATING THE ROUND. LET'S PLAY NICE IN THIS *PUBLIC* FORUM AND KEEP THE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY OF THE ACTIVITY IN TACT!

Have fun. Because if you aren't having fun you are losing. Even if I vote for you.

TLDR VERSION

I've been around a long time. I've seen a lot of conventional wisdom come and go. I don't always agree with the consensus of the moment. Be fast, be clear, read a K and/or a counterplan.

Remote Debates:

I flow on paper and actually make an effort to watch you and listen to the words you are saying. It's hard to give speaker points to a glowing dot, so turn on your camera when speaking if possible. I will not follow the speech doc as you are talking, so be clear.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, but know that I won't look at the docs until the debate is over.

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

Open CX? - Sure, but if you aren't involved somewhat, your speaker points suffer.

When does prep time stop? - When you cease to alter your speech doc and to talk about the debate with your partner.

Judge Disclosure - Unless the tournament has some terrible counter-educational policy preventing it (looking at you, NCFL).

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

T? - Reasonability (whew - really feels good to be honest there)

Will you vote on disclosure theory? - No. Disclosure is a good community norm which I support, but I do not think ballots can or should enforce this norm. The exception would be if you can prove that someone straight up lied to you.

Tech over truth? - Yes, but I think people often take this way too far.

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

I debated for four years in high school for Nevada Union (1998-2002) during which time I made two TOC appearances. I did not debate for Berkeley during my time there, but I was an assistant coach for the College Preparatory School from 2002-2006. After that, I was off the circuit for a few years because I moved to Hong Kong for a year and then went to graduate school. 2010-2011 was my first year back. I worked for New Trier for a year after that and at Nevada Union from 2011-2012. After that I went back to CPS for three more years. I then spent four years running the program at St. Francis. I now work with the Washington Urban Debate League. I have judged a lot for a long time.

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

I think that the phrase "tech over truth" is just as vacuous as its inverse, "truth over tech." I honestly have no idea what either of these slogans is trying to say, but I do know that people who repeat either of them incessantly tend to make decisions that I don't get.

"Tech" is just as subjective as "truth" because whether someone's embedded clash has answered something, whether an argument has a warrant, whether someone has explained something enough to have extended it, etc. are all judgement calls at some level anyhow.

I think that dropped arguments are conceded. I think that I should refrain from dismissing arguments that I don't agree with. I think that arguments which I think are bad should still win the debate if the debater advancing them has argued better than the opponent. I guess that's tech over truth?

At the same time, I am the kind of judge who thinks that one compelling, well-developed argument can be more important than three specious, underdeveloped ones. I don't think that the concession of a less significant argument necessarily outweighs a more significant argument that is won despite contestation. Is that truth over tech? Is this whole tech vs. truth binary kind of pointless?

My bumper sticker slogan would be something like: "Analysis over blips."

Speaker Points - No, you can't have a 30.

It used to go without saying that I award speaker points solely based on how well I feel the debaters performed in each round. These days, it seems that I need to say that I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone else does and regardless of what debaters tell me to do during the debate.

I think that there's a performative/communicative aspect to this activity. Speak persuasively and your points will improve.

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

I'll disclose my decision and talk about the round with you in depth afterwards. I remember getting a lot out of post-round discussions when I was a debater, and I hope I can pass something along. If your analytics are in your speech docs for my later reference, I'll even give you my flows.

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

Lately, someone out there has been telling high school debaters to slow down and emphasize tags. Stop it, whoever you are. This advice implies that I don't care about the text of the card. In fact, I care about how you tagged the card far, far less than I care about what the text of the card actually says. When you slow down for the tag, but slosh unintelligibly through the card, you are implying that I can't understand high speed and that the actual card text is a mere formality. If this is so, you may as well just paraphrase the card like a PF debater.

Believe it or not, I actually can understand your card at high speeds if you read it clearly. I'm actually flowing what the card says. Often as not, I won't flow your (often misleading) tag at all.

I'll yell "clear" at you if you're not being clear. I'll do this twice before putting my pen down and pointedly glaring at you.

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

I'll look at evidence, sure, but I will be grumpy if you make me sort out a huge rat's nest of implied and unexplained clash for you. I am a believer in directly responsive line-by-line debate. I think that explaining warrants is good, but comparing warrants is better.

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

I am one of the last folks out there who won't take a side. I vote neg on framework sometimes; I vote aff on framework sometimes. I think framework debates are kind of fundamental to the activity. I'm up for any kind of argument. I love a good K debate, but I'm equally pleased to adjudicate a game of competing policy options. Run what you love. In my heart, I probably don't care if there's a plan text, but I'll vote for theory arguments demanding one if the better debating is done on that side. Please don't read offensive/amoral arguments.

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

I think one or two conditional CP's and a K is just fine. You can win a debate on conditionality being more permissive than that or being bad altogether. I won't intervene.

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give this RFD: "Even though you're winning a we meet, the neg interpretation is better, so any risk that you don't meet etc etc." Ever since someone told me back in 1999 that T should be evaluated like a DA, I have not agreed. It's a procedural issue, not a predictive claim about the consequences of implementing a policy. As such, I evaluate T procedurally. Whether or not the aff meets is a binary question, not a linear risk.

I think sometimes people think that "competing interpretations" means "the smallest interpretation should win." To me, smallest is not necessarily best. Sure, limits are a big deal, but there is such a thing as over-limiting. There are also other concerns that aren't limits per se, like education, ground, and predictability.

I can be persuaded otherwise in a debate, but I think we should evaluate T through the lens of reasonability.

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

Just make sure that you're involved somewhat or I'll hammer your speaks.

Disclosure theory

Stop it. People choose to disclose as a courtesy. It is not and should not be a requirement. I tell all my teams to disclose. I think you should disclose. If you choose not to, so be it.

If you make a disclosure theory argument, I will ignore you until you move on to something else. I will never vote on a disclosure theory argument, even if it is not answered.

I always find it sadly hilarious when big, brand-name programs tell me that disclosure is good for small schools. It most definitely is not. The more pre-round prep becomes possible, the more that coaching resources can be leveraged to influence debates. That's why the most well-resourced programs tend to be the most aggressive about disclosure theory.

New Affs

New affs are fine. I will not consider arguments which object to them, even if the aff team never answers such arguments.

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

I have judged infrequently for the last few years, so I may not be up on the latest trends in progressive arguments, but I understand debate and I flow.

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I really don't want to judge theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument, but theory is not my forte and I generally feel that fairness and educational value are going to lean toward having a debate that is topical to the resolution. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

Tl;dr: Please debate the resolution. It will make me happy.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last Major update: 4/9/24: Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round. This also means that Kritiks of T are fine because the general nature what is "topical" is a contestable including the nature of the resolution itself.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

Read this entire PF paradigm before the round please. It will cover almost every question you might have.

Background:

I competed almost exclusively in Public Forum debate from 2010-2014 at Cypress Bay High School in Florida before going on to debate NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate at Texas Tech University. In college I coached PF teams in Florida, namely at Nova High School, West Broward High School, and C. Leon King High School. My first coaching job out of college was at Coral Springs High School. I tend to do more coaching/observing than actual judging at major tournaments. 

Style:

If you have to trade off clarity for speed, don’t go for speed. My ears can only pick through so much mumbling and if I don’t clearly hear it, it won’t be on my flow. Also, keep in mind that you should try to slow down on your taglines and citations as they are crucial to making sure I'm on the same page as you. Especially for online debates, I would highly recommend slowing your pace from your usual speed in front of flow judges. I'm still flowing intensely, but I would prefer if you slowed down just a tad bit as I am growing increasingly concerned with the new trend towards speed. Otherwise, I am open to just about any style you might have. I try not to penalize teams for having a different regional style than what I might be used to. Off-time roadmaps are not only accepted but encouraged. Second speaking rebuttal doesn't have to respond to the first speaking rebuttal but it will certainly help your case and make life easier for your summary speaker.

Speaker Point Scale:

I go by a pretty standard scale moving in increments of .5 points (where applicable). You’ll never win my ballot just by being the better speakers, but I certainly do appreciate everything that goes into a great presentation/speech. Proper eye contact, appropriate hand motions, clarity, good posture, projection of your voice, etc will win you marks. Low-point wins are rare but totally a possibility based on what happens on the flow.

< 26 = You said something incredibly offensive and I'm considering dropping you on face value.

26-26.5 = You definitely have room for improvement.

27-27.5 = You’re an alright speaker and might even break.

28-28.5 = You’re a great speaker and will probably break.

29-29.5 = You might be in contention for a speaker award with speeches that good.

30 = You impressed/entertained me in such a way that I had no choice but to give you the maximum amount of points.

Framework:

If you have a framework then it should be warranted if you want me to take it into account when making my decision. The more clearly defined a framework is, the more likely I am to buy into it. I’m open to just about any type of framework but it’s all about how you use it in the later speeches to win. Absent any framework, I’ll just default to stock-issue impact calculus to figure things out.

Critical or non-traditional arguments:

I predominantly dealt with these arguments in NPDA/NPTE Parli but I'm open to hearing them in all forms of debate. Don't be overly concerned though, 99% of PF rounds that I watch don’t end up being like this at all and I’m perfectly fine with that either way. I think teams that run these types of arguments just to confuse or exclude their opponents ruin the experience for everyone and should be dropped, but otherwise, it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me why they get to run what they want to and why that matters. Likewise, it’s up to the opponents to tell me why they don’t get to and why that matters as well.

Crossfire:

What happens in crossfire doesn’t ever make it onto my flow until you explicitly tell me to refer back to it in one of your speeches. I’ll still be listening so stay on your game and keep things engaging. Be extra mindful of respecting your opponents in crossfire to avoid things getting too heated. This is especially true in Grand Crossfire when most teams are fed up with one another and really start to turn up the heat. It's not life or death, it's just crossfire. Don't use crossfire to make a speech or grandstand, use the time to go back and forth on questions to clarify points of clash in the debate. And don't be rude. I shouldn't have to tell you that.

Additional comments:

I try to refrain from intervening under any circumstance. I try to sign my ballot using the path of least resistance for the relevant issues on the flow. Your best bet of getting there comes from your ability to weigh arguments against one another, starting at the very latest in summary and then again in final focus. If you don’t weigh, you leave things up to my interpretation and we may not have the same interpretation of how the round went. That being said, the summary doesn’t need to perfectly mirror the final focus, just have some consistency in what arguments you go for. I'm going to try and be as laid back as possible primarily because I want everyone to be comfortable. Do whatever has brought you competitive success before or whatever you enjoy the most and I guarantee it’ll make for better rounds. At its core, competitive debate is a subjective activity in persuasion and no matter how long of a paradigm I give you, there will always be a human element to these things. If you want disclosure and comments at the end of the round, I’d be more than happy to offer what I can within a reasonable amount of time (assuming the tournament allows for disclosure). Otherwise, the ballot will be filled out rather extensively (in my atrocious handwriting if we're unfortunately on paper ballots).

If you have a problem with any of this, I recommend you strike me ahead of time. Absent that option, cross your fingers.

I am a parent judge from Hunter College High School. I have been judging for a few years now. Please speak slowly and clearly, no jargon. You should concentrate on the 1-2 most relevant arguments at the end of the round and point out to me why I should vote on those. If you want to win off of an argument, please highlight it in the summary and reiterate it in the final focus speeches. Please be civil to your competitors.

I competed in Public Forum in high school for four years and coached for two year for Colleyville Heritage High School. I'm currently a fourth year at the University of Chicago and a concurrent Master's student in IR.

I'm open to any argument but have a few preferences with argumentation:

Framework: Super important! I think framework is incredibly useful in contextualizing all arguments in the round. Linking your arguments through your framework and then proving why I should buy the framework is the clearest path to my ballot. But also make sure to engage in a framework debate, not simply read different frameworks against each other. Weighing arguments under your framework = critical to my ballot.

Summary/Final Focus: Make sure to set up arguments in Summary that will be weighed in Final. Extend offense from turns or disadvantages made in rebuttal, and don't simply tell me 'extend' things for you, do the weighing to convince me of the argument. Collapsing is key here, and your approach to Summary can't be to go for everything in the round-if you go explicitly line by line you lose a lot of valuable time that can be spent weighing.

Impact framing: You need to frame and weigh impacts in the last speeches for it to count as a voter. Simply repeating an impact from your constructive is not enough to win it; you need to weigh it against other impacts in the round and frame why we should be prioritizing those impacts first.

Defense: Answer it! I will weigh extended defense that goes unresponded to if your opponents do the work in weighing it. If you simply repeat your arguments without interacting with your opponent's responses, I'll be hesitant to buy it.

Evidence: I wil call for evidence that either 1) I know it is being misrepresented or miscut, 2) your opponents advocate is being misrepresented, or 3)sound exceptionally sketchy. Even if I think a piece of evidence might be untrue or unconvincing, I put the onus on the opposing team to call for the card and for me to evaluate it if they think it is critical to my decision in the round.

Speed: Don't debate at the speed where you have to do that weird breathing thing with your voice. I really dislike that sound.

Keep the debate space inclusive and accessible to all. I'm highly sensitive to racist, sexist, or misogynistic behavior, actions, or speech, and will intervene in exceptionally egregious circumstances.

10 years judging and coaching PF—9 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions--two online years), 7 times at Nationals

Add me to your evidence email. brandonc@svsd410.org

I coach only Public Forum.

I am a high school English teacher full time.

Speed is fine with me.

I prefer big picture summaries

Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.

Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.

I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.

Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.

Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.

Off time roadmaps: Don't care.

My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.

PARLI PARADIGM FOR NPDI 2016:

I have judged high school parli before but sparingly. I do not understand how the event is conventionally judged or interpreted. I compete for Berkeley's APDA team and I did Public Forum debate in high school. I am competent at flowing although I cannot flow policy speed or the speed of the fastest circuit LD; if you ask me to do so I will say "clear" if you go too quickly, but without prompting I will remain silent.

I am open to all kinds of arguments; to me, an argument is a claim and a warrant (i.e. a reason why the claim is true). I default to an offense-defense paradigm, so if you want me to evaluate the round in a way other than that tell me to do so and warrant why I should do so. If the round is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm it is of paramount importance that you weigh your arguments and warrant why they are more significant than your opponents' impacts, otherwise I will be deciding without a good justification for either side. I am unfamiliar with Ks in parli but I am open to them (if you explain them well) and I am predisposed to enjoy arguments that deploy an unconventional strategy.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

TLDR: I am a flow judge who will try to give helpful feedback.

How I Make My Decision

I will vote largely based on the final two speeches. I prefer to only vote on arguments whose warrant and impact are in both the summary and the final focus. However, there are two exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from the rebuttal to the final focus, however, I greatly prefer them to be in the summary and I am more likely to feel that they are new if they are extended from second rebuttal to second final focus. Second, the first final focus can make some new responses to new arguments made in the second summary but be reasonable about it.

Weigh as much as possible. I flow weighing arguments, and you can and should reference them as cleanly extended weighing analysis if your opponents do not respond to weighing in rebuttal or summary. Try to beyond using weighing buzz words such as magnitude/probability/timeframe and instead really tell me why the resolution is still true or false even if your opponents win all of their arguments.

Argumentation

I try and fail to come into each round as a blank slate, meaning that I try to disregard my biases.

I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

I am probably comfortable with most speeds that will be reached in a Public Forum round, but if you are going too fast I will try to let you know. However, if you go slower I am on balance more likely to vote for you. Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what kind of argument are making, but please try to sound like a human rather than a jargon machine. If it stops being helpful my expression will let you know.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

Evidence

Evidence ethics in Public Forum are awful. If your opponents are lying about evidence tell me, and they will lose because of it.

During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence will be exchanged off of prep time, but the team reading the evidence will need to take prep to do so unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you gives me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Although this is thorough it does not mean that I often call for evidence; on the contrary, I set strict guidelines so that I do not call for evidence when it is unreasonable to do so, reducing the probability that I intervene. 

Speaker Points

I will reward debaters for clarity, kindness, humor, tech skill, strategy, teamwork, persuasion, topic knowledge, and genius. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance long after the round, you should teach other students how to do debate right. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- There is a lot of room for improvement. 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.  

My Background

I competed in Public Forum for Evanston Township High School, mainly on the national circuit, and I graduated in 2015.

If you have any additional questions feel free to ask. If you have an issue with my decision also please feel free to communicate with me about that after the round.

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

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.

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

Chris McDonald (He/Him) - cmcmcdonald58@gmail.com

Use the above email for any email chains during the round.

Head Coach Eagan High School in Minnesota

While I mainly have coached and judged Policy Debate for the past 37 years I do judge my fair share of LD, Public Forum and Congressional Debate Rounds.

Items for all formats to consider:

1. Disclosure theory: While I understand why this started out as something good for the community it has unfortunately morphed into an abusive argument and as such I will not consider it in my decision for the round.
2. Evidence sharing: Have a system for sharing evidence setup before the round begins. This will make this more efficient and your judges happier. If you are asked for a piece of evidence you just read and it takes you more than 10 seconds to find the card, you can use your prep time locating it or the argument will become unsupported by evidence.
3. Paraphrasing in Debate: I dislike paraphrasing and even though the rules allow it I find that is has become abused by some debaters. I would ask that teams read actual quotes from evidence and not paraphrase. If you do paraphrase your evidence must comport with current NSDA rules concerning how paraphrasing works in line with MLA standards.

Policy Debate - Please know that while I used to judge a lot of rounds throughout the season in policy debate it has been a few years since I judged more than a handful of policy rounds. I do work with my school's novice and varsity policy teams, so I should be fairly up to date on key arguments on the current on topic.

My philosophy has pretty much remained consistent throughout my career. I consider policy debate to be a test of policy based ideas between two teams. How those teams approach the topic and frame the debate is entirely up to them. Below are a few things to know about me on some specifics but please know my primary objective is for us to have an enjoyable round of debate.

Delivery Speed - Since it has been a few years for me since last judging lots of policy debate my ability to listen to really fast debate has faded. Please keep it to a slightly slower speed of delivery especially when using the online platforms. I will let you know if you are unclear or going too fast by verbally indicating such during your speech. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being oratory speed and 10 being approaching the sound barrier (only joking here) I would place myself as a 7 these days.

Topicality - I enjoy a good topicality debate but have found that over the years teams are taking too many shortcuts with the initial development of the topicality violation. I prefer topicality to have a clear definition, a clearly developed violation, standards for evaluating the violation and reasons why it is a voting issue. For the affirmative side you really need to engage with the topicality violation and provide a counter interpretation that supports your interpretation of the resolution. Topicality is distinct from framework.

Framework - I also enjoy evaluating a debate when framework is clearly articulated and argued by both the affirmative and negative sides. Framework is focused around how you would like me to evaluate the arguments in the round. Do you prefer a consequentialist framework, a deontological framework, etc..

Critiques - I am fine with critical approaches by the negative and the affirmative sides. For the affirmative please keep in mind that you will need to defend your critical affirmative as either a topical representation of the resolution or why it is important for us to debate your affirmative even if it isn't necessarily within the boundaries of the topic.

Flow - Please label all arguments and positions clearly throughout the debate. Signposting has become a lost art. Debaters doing an effective job of signposting and labeling will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Disadvantages - Please be certain to articulate your links clearly and having clear internal links helps a great deal.

Counter plans - I think counter plans are an essential tool for negative teams. Please note that I am not a big fan of multiple conditional counter plans. Running a couple of well developed counter plans is better than running 4 or 5 underdeveloped counter plans. Counter plans should have a text to compete against the affirmative plan text.

Theory - General theory in debate rounds like conditionality are fine but have rarely been round winners without a lot of time devoted to why theory should be considered over substance.

If you have any questions please let me know and I will happily answer those questions.

Lincoln Douglas

1. I am not a fan of theory as it plays out in LD debate rounds. Most of the theory that is argued is pretty meaningless when it comes to the topics at hand. I will only consider topicality if the affirmative is presenting a plan text in the round or isn't debating the resolution we are supposed to be considering at that given tournament. I ask that the debaters debate the topic as it is written and not as they would like it to be.

2. Beyond my dislike for theory you are free to pretty much debate the round as you see fit. Please keep your speed to a level where you are clear.

3. Evidence should be shared using an email chain. Please include me at cmcmcdonald58@gmail.com

4. If you have specific questions please ask. I will disclose at the end of the round but I will also respect the tournaments schedule and work to keep it on time.

Public Forum

1. Evidence is very important to me. I prefer direct quotation of evidence over paraphrasing. Please make note of the NSDA rule regarding paraphrasing. Source Citations: make sure that you present enough of a source citation that I should have no problem locating the evidence you present in the round. This would include the author or periodical name and date at a minimum. So we are clear Harvard '23 is not a source citation. Harvard is a really great University but has, to my knowledge never written a word without the assistance of some human that attends or works at Harvard.

2. There is to be no game playing with regards to evidence sharing during or after the round. If you are asked for evidence by your opponents you must produce it in a timely manner or I will discount the evidence and only treat the argument as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Even if it means handing over one of your laptops you must provide evidence for inspection by the other team so that they may evaluate it and respond to the evidence in subsequent speeches.

3. Prep Time - you are only provided with 3 minutes of prep time, unless otherwise stated by the tournament you are attending. Please use it wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be efficient and quick about it.

4. Argument choices are completely up to the debaters. I prefer a good substantive debate with clear clash and that the debaters compare and weigh the arguments they feel are important for their side to prevail as the debate comes into focus but the substance of those arguments is completely within the control of the teams debating.

5. Please respect your opponents and treat everyone involved in the debate round with the utmost respect. Speaker points will be effected by any rude behavior on the part of a debater.

6. I will disclose and discuss my decision at the end of the round so long as there is time and the tournament stays on schedule.

7. Finally, please remember to have fun and enjoy the experience.

Public Forum coach for Horace Mann, competed for Miami Beach, senior in college.

I am writing this paradigm against my will because I don't think there should be paradigms in public forum debate! If you follow the rules and convince me, you will win the round. That said:

- Speed is fine, but if I look like I'm struggling to keep up or understand, slow down.

- I'm bad at getting down author names. Extend the institution name if possible (e.g. NY Times, not Smith).

- If you want me to vote on something, it should be in summary. That said, you don't need too much terminal defense in summary (but I would like to see some acknowledgment of your opponent's case).

- I prefer line by line, but obviously connect ideas, generate clash, address framework, etc.

- Second speaking team doesn't have to cover front lines in rebuttal, but it's nice if you do.

- Repeat crossfire points in speeches if you want them to be considered.

- WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS! Absolutely the most important thing. A good life skill too. Why does what you're saying make sense?

- Flesh things out for me! I don't want to intervene with my own thoughts/ideas, so if there's anything you want in my brain (even if its obvious, or even if you just want to express some healthy skepticism on a claim) say it out loud!

- Be funny but not mean :)

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 PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. 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 well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Please send speech docs to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
5. 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.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go)

1. 2nd Rebuttal & Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in BOTH the 2nd Rebuttal & Summaries. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the 1st rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts in the 2nd Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. If you want to go for C1 in any meaningful way. 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 not be sufficient. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the 2nd Rebuttal and/or Summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. 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. 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, especially if you are the team speaking 2nd.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted 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. 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. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage 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 or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 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, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch 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. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.

Several caveats to this general rule:

1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties

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,

3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.

4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.

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.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & 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.

6. 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.

6A. 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.

7. 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 an increasing number of 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 & Plans – For policy resolutions, while teams cannot utilize a "plan or counterplan,"—defined as a "formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation"—they can"offer generalized, practical solutions (GPS)." If you can figure out what that word soup means, you are a step up on me. The PF wording committee seems hellbent on continuing to give us broadly-worded policy resolutions that cry out for fiating some more specific version of the resolution. I used to be very much in the "Aff must prove their advocacy is the most likely version of the resolution" camp, but I am starting to move away from that position. I'm pretty certain that a 12 plank proposal with hyper-specific identification of agency, enforcement, and funding mechanisms would constitute a "formalized, comprehensive proposal," and thus be verboten as a "plan" under the above quoted NSDA rule. But does a single sentence with a basic description of a particular subset of the resolution meet this same threshold? IDK. I think there is room for interpretation on this. I haven't seen anyone get into the weeds on this as a theory argument, but I'm not sure just saying "plans aren't allowed" cuts it anymore, especially given the direction the topic committee seems to be moving. That also arguably leaves open similar room on the Neg for some sort of "counter-solution" or an alternative? I honestly don't know. I guess that means I am open to debates on this issue, if people want to try to push the boundaries of what constitutes a "generalized, practical solution." One thing I am certain on, though, is that if you do attempt to offer some sort of plan-esque "GPS," you probably should have a written text somewhere in your case specifically committing to what exactly the solution is your are advocating. Moving target advocacies that can never be pinned down are insanely abusive, so if you are going to go the "GPS" route, the least you can do is be consistent and up front about it. It shouldn't take a CF question to figure out what exactly it is you are advocating.

Multiple conditional advocacies – When teams read multiple 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 (assuming that you also extend the other team's link and impact stories), 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, or kick out of it properly. 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 - Don't paraphrase. I 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 minimal 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 theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

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. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure as arguments, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - I used to think that since PF teams don't get to fiat a counterplan, they don't get to fiat an alternative either. But as my ideas on plans vs "generalized, practical solutions (GPS)" evolve, so do my thoughts on alts. I used to think that the only alt a Neg could get was some variant on "reject." But now, I think there is more wiggle room for a traditional alt under that "GPS" language. I think most alt definitely are generalized solutions (sometimes overly generalized to their detriment). The question is, then, are they "practical" enough to meet the "GPS" language in the NSDA rules. Maybe, maybe not. My gut would tell me more often than not, K alts are not practical enough to meet this threshold, but I could certainly be convinced either way in any given round. That being said, I see no rules-based problems with reject or "do nothing" alts, although they usually have some serious problems on the solvency end of things, absent a good ROTB arg. And of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. 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.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")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 (e.g. ontology first) 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 - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), 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/PMC: 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/LOC: 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/MGC: 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, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. 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: Just 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.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 12th year of coaching and my 9th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate.

Updated December 2015

EXPERIENCE:

4 years of national circuit PF for Ridge High School in NJ.  Coach at Poly Prep in NYC.  Taught at CBI, NDF, and will be teaching at Millenial Speech and Debate Institute.

SPEED:

I was on the faster side of the PF circuit, anything short of spreading should be fine so long as it's signposted clearly on the flow and clear and anunciated.

EVIDENCE:

I will only call for a piece of evidence in one of two situations.  

1 - I am explicitly told to by someone in the round.  

2 - I am utterly unable to make a decision without seeing it.  Hint hint, if this is happening, someone was doing something wrong.  

For an evidence call I'll just make everyone put their pens down while the team looks for it.  If you just read an indict and they drop it I'll drop the evidence in the round.  If you think it's a gross enough violation for a loss or a disqualification, tell me to call for it and I'll make that call.  The only exception to this rule is that if I cannot make a decision for the round without incorporating that piece of evidence, then I'll ask to see it.

HOW I JUDGE:

Step #1: I look at the framework that's left after the clash in the round.  This means the framework that is warranted and weighed over whichever opposing framework is provided.  

Step #2: I look at the impacts that are left standing on the flow.  This means link level and impact level extension that is implicated as offense by the debaters.  *****Any offense needs to be in summary and final focus, this includes turns (this doesn't include defense, rebuttal to FF extension is fine on that)*****

Step #3: I look to see how the impacts left for each side fit into the framework provided for me.  This is where, in the event that you haven't established a framework or weighed your impacts, things start to go badly for you because I use my personal calculus to decide which impacts I want more.  *****I AM WEIRD, YOU DO NOT WANT ME MAKING THIS DECISION****SO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS*****

MISC:

I don't flow Cross and usually use it to write on the ballot.  If something important happens in Cross, it needs to be mentioned in the next speech or it does nothing on the flow.  

I buy any argument so long as the evidence is there and the responses are dealt with.  If you want to run an aliens case, go for it.

I'm also down for other weird stuff.  Want to read one contention and start responses in the case? Go for it.  Want to skip case and go straight to defense? Godspeed.  Want to use a hipster moral theory? Warrant it and you're good. 

I am receptive to theory and kritiks, so long as they are implicated and warranted.  If you tell me your opponent's discourse is a voter, I'll go for it.  

Any and all questions are more than welcomed, I want you to have total knowledge of who you're debating in front of.

Good luck and have fun.

UPDATED slightly on 3/2/24:

PLEASE EMAIL ME CASES BEFORE THE ROUND SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FOLLOW THEM: ppaikone@gmail.com. THANK YOU!

Personal Background:

Since 2023, I am the speech and debate coach of George School in Pennsylvania. From 2000-2023, I was a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.

For online debate:

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.

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

As a former CX Debater/coach,  I generally start with framework and observations and weigh them throughout the round, and I do not automatically count drops unless they are actually outlined. I don't mind a sense of humor. I always enjoy good clash in a debate round. Spreading is not encouraged, as what cannot be heard will not be flowed I love PF, and I have judged hundreds of rounds at every major tournament in the country including semi-finals at TOC's.  
Here are a few basic rules:
*Old policy habits die hard:  Framework, Framework, Framework,
*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive
*I don't intervene on the flow; you must make the argument. 
*Be careful with evidence; I probably know the card as well as you do.
*If you have a winning argument; I need to hear it before final focus; It must run throughout the round.
*Never lie about what the other team dropped.  

Competed for James Madison Memorial 2001-2005. Competed in CX, Extemp, and Congress. Tried PF when it was still an experimental ("Ted Turner"/Controversy) event.

Assisted teams in Denver (Debate and Speech) while teaching in Denver 2009-2012.

Currently a practicing attorney in Lexington.

I'll vote for whatever you persuade me to vote for. Judges hear different things than you think you're saying, so, slow down and say them like you've been practicing to say them in these moments, and don't just let them sound the way they sound coming out of your face. Slow down. 

Speaker points are awarded for good speeches, good teamwork (which includes prep time allocation), and good jokes; cordiality is, generally, irrelevant; civility is not. 

This is a general paradigm for all events, and I'm not highly active in the speech/debate communities any longer, so here's me, in case you're wondering whether I'm flowing or just somebody's cousin. I did competitive forensics in all of high school and college. I won the student congress TOC and the Harvard congress tournament in 2009 and I directed the congress camp at UTNIF for four years from 2012-2015. I did parliamentary debate in Canada (APDA/CUSID) for the first two years of college, then policy debate at Wake Forest and Emporia State in my final three years. Now I do Medicare Advantage stuff.

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.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

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 work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. 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 fast 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.

Updated for Harvard 2021:

While I have a background in policy and LD I’m usually in pf pools for round commitments these days. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round that you think would help your strategic advantages.

I prefer a framework or a weighing mechanism in which I can filter the debate. I like strong link chains, impact calculus, and contentious clash. I think defense should be extended if it’s an important argument in the debate, but you ought not waist speech time if they concede the defense. Speed will always be fine, I will flag if I get tech fuzzy because of storms that are expected throughout the weekend.

Email Chain: Grahamphlieger@gmail.com

Background

Policy, PF, Ld, Congress, Extemp for Crandall HS (Tx): 2011-2015

Coach for Southlake Carroll HS (Tx): 2015-2017

Coach for Lake Travis HS (Tx): 2019-

npda/npte at University of Texas at Tyler 2015-2018

In PFD, I want to see organized cases with debaters directly clashing with opposing arguments. I want to hear sources with dates, in case I want to refer to them at some point in time. I would prefer to hear a few well-developed arguments instead of a dozen arguments that are only mentioned once in the debate. I don't think theory arguments are appropriate for this format. I expect final speakers to sum up why their side won the debate (voters). I expect all of the debaters to speak at a rate in which a normal human being could hear, process, and understand. I coached for a long time, and I really enjoy hearing sound, logical arguments.

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

Yes, I am a parent judge, yet travelled with my son's team for three years and judged at every tournament. I want you to convince me with your arguments, not with a bunch of PF lingo.  I do not like speed for speeds sake, as I can't flow. If I can't understand what is coming out of your mouth, I can't follow you. If I can't follow you,  I can't vote for you. I originally came from a speech background, I care about speaking technique. Quality of argument over quantity. 

Be clear:

Public Forum's roots are based in "one" going before the general public, persons of diverse education, intellect and knowledge.  I expect the presentation of your arguments to reflect that. Please don't dumb down because I am a "parent" judge.

Be clean: Please do not play dirty, the world is dirty enough. Be clean.

Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending.  There is no room for that.

Use:

Your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story.

Your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.

Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled. 

Your final focus to make me vote for you. 

Thank you!

I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.

To the point:

I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.

What does that mean?

Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around.

Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.

FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.

While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)

Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.

I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise, all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.

BOTTOM LINE:

If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.

Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.

As it relates to LD -

Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.

Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have the opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.

“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk

I evaluate the framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.

If they say they are in the direction of the topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.

I prefer students to use cx for questions and answer exchanges, not for extra prep.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing, HOWEVER, Flow is not at the top of my list for winning the arguments. Rather I consider your ability to persuade me as a typical everyday citizen. Your ability to do that is unique. I am expected to come into the Debate room without any previous opinion and with a clean slate, in order to keep my own personal opinion from influencing how I choose the outcome. In exchange I expect the debaters to assume that I do not know anything more about the topic than an ordinary person. It is therefore each debaters responsibility to define acronyms and define anything that an ordinary person would not commonly know.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing however my decisions are determined more on persuasion than flow. I believe that it is extremely important therefore to know your judge and ask the appropriate questions to make sure that what you are saying and how you’re saying is catered to the listener because even if you know what you’re saying but the judge is not able to understand it or appreciate the logic behind it then you are at a loss. In short, KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. Feel free to ask me as many questions as needed before the round begins to clarify further. Best of luck and remember to have fun!

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Name:Jens Rudbeck

School Affiliation: Horace Mann

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 6 Years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? No

What is your current occupation? Professor of Political Science at Center for Global Affairs, New York University

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: I prefer slower

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I like both

Role of the Final Focus: Important that the reasons I should vote pro or con are highlighted

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Very important

Topicality up to the debaters to decide whether an argument is non-topical. If they cannot reach a conclusion together, I will evaluate whether an argument is topical based off their analyses

Plans: Not allowed in PF

Kritiks? up to debaters

Flowing/note-taking: note-taking

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? I Argument and style equally?

I value both argument and style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

No

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.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

NOTICE FOR SEPTOBER PF: DO NOT QUOTE ANY SOURCE LISTED BY THE SPLC AS A HATE GROUP!! (Know your sources)

*TLDR FOR NSDA NATS*

35 years of LD competition, coaching and judging

TRADITIONAL LD, WHOLE REZ, If someone proves the aff side true, I vote aff. Follow NSDA RULES.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

DISCLOSURE: I regard disclosure as a tool for rich schools with multiple employees to prep out schools with less resources. This is not a theory arg I am synmpathetic to.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

LAST UPDATED: NOV. 4, 2023

My previous paradigm preferences are four years old at this point and likely outdated. I have deleted them for now.

I am likely much, much worse at flowing these days than I was when judging all the time. I have been a tournament tab resident for years on end now, and that likely means I'm not as up to date on new progressive developments in rounds.

Here's what I'll say:

- Don't treat me like I'm a dummy, but don't presume I understand everything you're saying. I need you to do the work of explaining arguments, articulating impacts, and explicitly weighing within the round.

- I expect that a PF team going 2nd will have a rebuttal that both answers the opponent's case and rebuilds their own. Any argument not addressed in the 2nd team's rebuttal is a conceded argument, and if the first team makes it a voter, that's likely ballgame (assuming there is offense on the argument for the 1st team).

- I'm watching everything, but if you don't make it matter, it doesn't matter.

- In PF, I'm not going to break my back to follow you at a thousand miles an hour, so if you're fast, I'll give you one verbal "CLEAR" in the round to let you know you're leaving me behind. I will not feel at all responsible for what you might think is a bad decision if the way you're speaking disregards my ability/inability to follow and flow you.

- I expect clear and explicit voters in the final speeches.

- I'm not at all impressed by debaters who are jerks to opponents. This is a community, and everyone in it should be a steward of that community. Decorum, in extreme cases, is a voting issue for me, and I do consider my ballot my greatest means of discouraging outlandish and abusive behavior.

- I want full text reading of evidence, not paraphrasing. Upon the request of the opponent, cards not provided in a reasonable timeframe will be disregarded as if they don't exist.

If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

Experience: I debated for American Heritage in Plantation for four years on the national circuit for Public Forum. I have experience judging on the national circuit.

TL;DR: I am the epitome of a flow judge. The definition of tech over truth. I do not care how squirly the argument is as long as it is well warranted, heavily carded, linked, and weighed appropriately. Bonus speaks for jokes (I like sarcasm, If you think your opponents responses are terrible make it abundantly clear), 30s for food, 20s for quadpods, and card dumps expected. Auto win if you have chipotle come and cater in the round...I don't think this will ever happen but if it does props to u!

Cases: I don't care what the argument is, but you need warrants, cards, and links. Cards need source names. You can put framework if you want, I don't really care, but if you will be extending framework throughout the round I would rather you put it in case. I'd rather no quotes at the top; huge waste of time.

Rebuttal: Makes sure you actually respond to their arguments because I hate beating around the bush. The more cards the merrier.

How I Vote: If you don't give me weighing mechanisms then I get to vote for whatever I want. I'll still vote for whoever I think should have won, but weighing makes my job a lot easier. Anything you want to say in FF should be in summary besides terminal defense. The way I vote is by looking at the whole of the args presented and using the framework set out to me by both teams I make a decision. Impacts are incredibly important so make them clear.

Misc: Although I am a progressive judge please no K or theory debate. Jargon is fine. 
Of course I am not going to flow cross but that doesn't mean I don't want to see a show. Expect a full discloure and helpful comments after the round unless you or tab specifically asks me not to. Also, I will not disclose speaks. 
Any questions feel free to ask before round or email me at msorbet@ufl.edu

Email for email chains: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

Update: 9/17/24

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

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1)Theory - Theory is not a game, it is for the improvement of debate going forward. I'm much more truth over tech on these issues. You will NOT convince me within the space of a debate round that paraphrasing is good or that disclosure is bad. In fact, as a squad, we are starting at Yale to disclose rebuttal arguments.

2)Understand what is theory and what are kritiks. IVI's are not a thing, pick a lane and go with one of the former arguments.

3)Presumption is a 1950's concept in debate. In fact, I would say that as a policymaker, I tend to favor change unless there is an offensive reason to trying change.

4) 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.

5) Read evidence (see theory above). 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.

6) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce (email it) it in less 60 seconds.

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.

9) Don't expect good points if you are blippy, you don't send out speech documents, or you send out a lot more than you actually read. Also, anything else that appears to be you trying to game the system or confuse your opponent. See #7 for good points.

10) Slow down, I'm not a lay judge, but flow judges need good signposting and good warrants, and not seven or eight analytic assertion arguments in a row

11) Weighing is comparative and needs time. Don't just talk about your argument.

12) If you read more than three contentions, expect your points to go down.

13) Ask me if you have questions

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

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.

My paradigm is pretty simple; answer these three questions:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh.

In addition, I strongly favor teams that provide a clear narrative, one that is usually anchored in a clear framework that defined key terms and concepts fairly.

4 years debating for Stuy, 4 years coaching for Poly Prep

i flow (unfortunately)

- slow, please

- i don't know how to evaluate k's, theory, etc. (if there is an egregious abuse, i'm down to have a discussion or bring it higher up)

- no patience for cards getting called every five seconds-- just do some warranting :)

pretend i'm lay and have fun. i believe in you.

(30s if you win w/o reading evidence)

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

During the season, I am typically involved in topic work for my team and read quite a bit. However, I’m finding that students will frequently make up acronyms now that might not exist in the original literature. If it’s something you made to try to cut down on time, chances are I will still need to be told what it stands for anyway.

My preferred debates are ones in which both teams have come prepared to engage each other with some reasonable expectation as to what the other team is going to read. Debaters should have to defend both their scholarship and practices in round. If you've chosen to not disclose, are unable to explain why the aff doesn't link to the K, or explain to me why you should be rewarded for being otherwise unprepared, you're fully welcome to try to explain why you should not lose in a varsity level competition. However, strategies that are purposefully meant to run to the margins and seek incredibly small pieces of offense in order to eke out a win due to the reliance on shoddy scholarship, conspiracy-peddlers, or outright fabrication will be met with intervention. If your argument will fall apart the moment I spend maybe thirty seconds to confirm something for my RFD, you should strike me.

This activity only exists so long as we implement practices that allow it to. All of our time in debate is limited(though some rounds can feel like an endless purgatory or the tenth layer of hell) but the implications of how rounds are conducted and behavior that is put forth as an example will echo far into the future. You should want to win because you put in more effort and worked harder. If you don’t want to put real effort and clash with arguments in a round, why are you spending so much time in these crusty high schools eating district cafeteria food when you could be doing literally anything else?

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)” Sending google docs that are unable to be downloaded/will have access rescinded immediately after the round is unacceptable and shows that you’re relying more on smoke and mirrors than proper debate. No one is going to care that you’re reading the same China DA or “structural violence framing” that everyone in the tournament has been reading since camp.

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.

6. I will not read off of docs during the round. I will clear you twice if I am not able to comprehend you. Opponents don’t get to clear each other. Otherwise why would I not just say clear into oblivion during your speech time?

7. Theory is not a weapon or a trick. Hyper-specific interpretations meant to box the opponent out of a small difference as to how they’ve conducted a practice are not something I’m willing to entertain. Objections based on argument construction/sequencing are fine though.

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. I personally enjoy heg, terror, and other extinction level scenarios. 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.

I am not a fan of extinction/death good debates. I do not think teams are thoroughly working through the implications as to what conclusions come from starting down that path and what supremacist notions are lying underneath. If a villain from a B movie made in the 80s meant to function as COINTELPRO propaganda would make your same argument, I don’t really want to hear it. Eco-fascism is still fascism, ableist ideas of what it means to have a meaningful life are still ableist, and white supremacists are still going to decide in what order/what people are going to the gallows first.

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.

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 fine(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.

Tl;dr

• Strike me if you're a relatively inexperienced "circuit" debater who is trying to debate in a "circuit" style: i.e. spreading for its own sake, running theory because you haven't researched enough case material, etc. Pref me highly if you are not such a debater or if you come from a traditional circuit and expect to be debating a value and value criterion (by no means am I saying you must have those things). Pref me in the middle if you are an experienced debater who truly understands when using certain strategies is important and you're not just reading me what a coach/teammate told you to run.
• On spread--I can flow spread just fine; however, I don't like spread when it is used as a barrier for discourse. If you and your opponent are comfortable with spread (defined as 250 wpm or above) then go for it. Speak loudly and clearly and I'll be fine. If not, if your opponent can't flow spread, please do not spread. If your opponent can't respond to your arguments simply because you're speaking too fast then it is your fault, not hers. You won't lose the round for it but your speaker points will suffer.
• On arguments--run whatever you think is most effective. However, know that I don't really like Topicality as a response. I have judged an awful lot of debate and can count on two fingers how many arguments have truly been nontopical. Usually, T is run against arguments that debaters don't otherwise know how to respond to and I don't like that. You are welcome to tell me a nontopical argument is nontopical but please also engage the substance of the argument.
• On evidence--I believe this to be a community of integrity. There are individuals who will do shoddy things and we should discourage that but there are others who call falsification without proof as a strategy. Both are bad. THE MOMENT I HEAR "FALSIFICATION" THE ROUND STOPS. I evaluate the evidence and award a loss to the debater/team that was wrong. If you're calling clipping, calling falsification, etc, prove it. The burden of proof I'll use is not a steep one but it needs to show misrepresentation. I'm not encouraging falsification nor am I discouraging calling it; however, those are tall accusations and it is your burden to prove it.
• I'm a big backpack rap fan--work in a Watsky, Macklemore, Wax, or Dumbfoundead reference and I'll smile and be happy with you and might give you an extra speaker point.

The rest of this paradigm is a verbose discussion of my thoughts on the activity to which I've dedicated much of my life for the past eight years.

Background:
Assistant Coach of Forensics and Debate at Brookfield East High School. Previously coached at Whitefish Bay High School. Competed in Wisconsin and nationally in Congressional Debate and in Public Forum debate with Brookfield East (class of ’12). I have a bachelor's degree from Marquette University in Milwaukee, majoring in Political Science (concentration in public policy/political economy) and Economics (analysis in international trade, econometrics, and public finance/policy evaluation) with a minor in Spanish. I'm a nerd for the studies and empirical research. In real life, I run a restaurant and small investment firm with differentiated subsidiaries.

I judge almost every weekend from September through March and am well versed on the topic literature as I research and cut cards with my team. I coach PF and LD as well as Congressional Debate (and IE’s in the spring) so I read lots and lots of evidence.

Value/Criterion:
I'm extremely progressive on this topic. I feel that the debate is ultimately decided in the metaphysical realm and there are generally few empirics you can run strongly on the topic. Give me something to chew on here, more than usual. I think a lot of the debate is going to be framework and theory. I will accept Anti-values, Standards, et cetera, instead of a traditional V/VC structure. You can advocate a standard-less debate as well as long as you give me good theory to back it up.

Definitions Debate:
I will only vote on a definition if it goes dropped and really does redefine the debate in a way that I can only vote for one side. That being said, if you present me a really shady definition that defines it so that the Aff/Neg has no chance of winning the round and your opponent provides a legitimate and fair definition in response I, as a judge, am always going to favor the definition that provides equality to the grounds of both sides. This shouldn’t have to be said but I will always prefer a term of art definition to Webster’s even if the dictionary is the only card presented. I am a word nerd; please don't BS me in the definitions debate.

I generally don't like verbose discussions of framer's intent with resolutions. I'm intimately familiar with how these resolutions are actually written--don't try to run ridiculous things on these grounds.

Types of Arguments:
I will accept any type of argumentation you throw at me as long as it's well argued with warrants and impacts. You can kritik the resolution; read me poetry that helps me better understand the plight of the needy; K the opponents case or his language; run a narrative alternative; run a priori reasons to negate; or tell me my ballot is a tool and I should vote for you for some obscure yet well argued reason. I personally believe that good argument is good argument—if you give me reasons why it should be the voting issue in the round I will vote on it. That said, if you provide an argument that requires me to accept something completely non sequitur with reality, I will reject it. In other words, if you tell me I should affirm because there are only 49 states and that is a prime number, I won't vote on it because, well, there aren't and it’s not. Otherwise, I don't intervene.

I can follow complex philosophy pretty easily but you shouldn’t assume anything and take shortcuts here, as I’m nowhere near as proficient as I’d like to be. I love philosophy; I’ve read a lot on many subjects and can follow along with sound analysis; however, it's bad form to assume that your opponent will be familiar with your concepts. Debaters should generally subscribe to the ELI5 method. That is to say, if you can’t explain your argument to a five year old, you don’t fully understand the concepts yourself. I will vote on theory but please explain why voting on theory should trump case evaluation.

Extending arguments is important; however, telling me to "extend contention 2--it went cold conceded" is far less effective than summarizing the argument and presenting it as a round issue. Same goes with cards. "Extend the Coase analysis" is valid but less effective than explaining it to me again so I know why it's important.

I've developed a slight disdain for plans over time as they present an infinite research burden but will still vote on them.

Evidence:
People who say evidence doesn’t belong in LD are, for some reason, clinging to the archaic as a means to bring the activity towards where they think it should be rather than allowing it to grow organically. Use evidence if it's necessary for your argument. I’ll buy sound analysis over a shoddy card any day but you should back things up with research. My thoughts on this are developing over time as I watch more rounds. Really, I appreciate the debaters who make sound arguments that are based in analysis over those who rely on their evidence to analyze things--it shows a better understanding of the issues. However, reading me cards without analyzing them yourself is the equivalent of saying nothing. Signpost then analyze the evidence—tell me why I should care about what the author is saying—why does it impact the debate?

I’ve never had to ask for a card before but will if I have to. Don’t clip cards. This is a community of integrity—keep it that way. I generally won’t vote on cards; I vote on arguments. I don’t really care whether a Ph.D said it… if it’s sound, I’ll buy it and if it’s not, I won’t. To be clear, I expect more than regurgitation or carpet-bombing.

I need adequate citations. Name is usually enough if they’re not claiming anything weird but sometimes it’s best to hear a few words on the credentials too. If you’re citing an analysis of Rawls or Kant, name-drop the master so I know what’s going on, please.

Delivery:
I can flow pretty quickly and can handle “debate speed” but don’t want to hear much more. This is more a philosophical issue than anything else—I generally will pick up a spreader 50% of the time, as they tend not to make any more, or better, arguments than a non-spreader. Quality will always beat quantity. As this is a communication event, don’t forget that you have to communicate your arguments so that I may understand them. I'll yell at you if I can't hear/understand what you're saying, of course.
I like signposting; it enhances the debate. You have to tell me where things go on my flow if you expect me to write them down. If you’re giving an overview, tell me. If you’re starting with the second contention and then coming back to the first for some cockamamie reason, tell me.
SPEAK LOUDLY
As a general rule, if I’m looking back at you in a speech (not in CX) you’re likely not saying anything worth writing down. If you read me a canned 1AR that has nothing to do with the opponent’s case, I’ll read the posters in the room or count down the seconds on my timer until the time-wasting has completed. I like clash and debating, if you haven’t noticed.

Decorum:
I don’t care whether you sit, stand, or lay on the table when you debate. Do what makes you comfortable. If that means taking off your jacket because it’s hot—go for it. Take off the heels—I don’t care.
Be nice. I get that things get heated—I was a debater too. I get it. Not much more to say here. However, if you are disrespectful it will reflect in your speaker points. There’s a fine line between assertive and jerk. I’m liberal here but have seen many rounds get out of hand. As a general rule, treat others the way you want to be treated: respectfully.

Voters:
Give them to me. If you don't, I will intervene strangely and vote in ways you won't like. Tell me how to vote. This is your round and not mine. You don't have to give them all at once, but if they aren't given I am left without a methodology to adjudicate things

Weighing:
Please weigh your impacts. If you tell me that I should vote aff for puppies, and I should vote neg for kitties, I'll be happy you've given me voters but lost on how I'm supposed to weigh them—link back through your criterion or make sure I understand there are real world impacts outside the resolution. If you're still reading this exceedingly long thing you are an excellent human and probably already know how to weigh impacts. 

Speaker Points:
I used to be a stickler about them but have seen the trend of inflation coming. With their use as a common tiebreaker, I’ve become a sort of point fairy. However, there is a scale. I'm a big backpack rap fan--work in a Watsky, Macklemore, Wax, Dumbfoundead, et cetera, reference and I might have to give you an extra point or two.
30) Excellent, passionate and engaging performance. Not uncommon but hard to attain. Argumentatively speaking, not much else you could have done better. I’m impressed. Most likely on par with the best thing I’ll see in the tournament; you deserve a speaker award.
29) Sound arguments and leadership in the discussion. Not much to improve in the way of argumentation. I’m impressed. Much more common that 30’s. You've taken the time to read your judge's paradigm--bravo to you for doing what I try to get my kids to do--you'll do fine with points.
28) Great job with the argumentation. Good delivery and good leadership. You did all that was expected of an experienced debater.
27) Great job with the arguments but you likely lost the round because of something here. You did all that was expected of a good debater.
26) You could have done more with the argumentation. You likely dropped something or committed a logical fallacy or two. Competent delivery.
24) Argumentation was deficient in some way. Delivery was likely lacking in poise.
23) You’re likely out of your league and still learning. That’s still good though—learn from our mistakes. Few refutations made and delivery was lacking. Usually didn’t fully utilize time given
20) Equally as common as 30’s. I give these because they’re usually the lowest I’m allowed to go. Only given when there’s misconduct of some sort. I’ll note on the ballot what you did to irk me.

BRONX-SPECIFIC PARADIGM

• Give me terminal impacts when you're talking about things like rights and discourse and maybe don't run a case that only impacts to things like that unless you're very very sure you can give me concrete impacts. 

GENERAL PARADIGM

I debated for three years for Presentation High School in California in Public Forum, and now I'm a junior at Northwestern studying journalism & political science. 

1. Give me warrants!! Please!! Please. 
2. I will drop you and give you zero speaker points if you say something so overtly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. that I think it warrants losing a ballot.
3. I will flow the round, and when I debated I spoke pretty quickly. I'm okay with some level of speed, but please don't spread.
4. I expect any voter in final focus to have been in summary (defense from rebuttal to FF is fine). 
5. I don't flow crossfire, but I listen, so if something important happened, bring it up in a speech. 
6. I will vote on framework. If you're running one, run it at the top of your case (rather than in rebuttal) and discuss any framework clash in first crossfire. I want framework dealt with early in the round, clashing/unwarranted frameworks in final focus make it significantly harder for me to make a decision and make it significantly more likely that you'll dislike my decision. 
7. I'll call for cards if they're contested, but only on arguments extended through final focus.
8. If you run more than like 30 seconds of off-case or necessary-but-insufficient burdens you'll annoy me. If someone's running a ton of off-case against you and you argue that it's unfair to have to respond to all of them, I'll probably buy it. 
9. I'm only harsh on speaker points if you're mean in round, but I can have a pretty low bar for "mean" so be as nice as possible. No problem with being aggressive, but don't be a dick about it. 

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

I'm the coach at Boston Latin School, and I've been coaching at the high school and college level for about the last 15 years. I've done most forms of debate at one time or another, including Policy, Parli, LD, and even Congress and Worlds. I'm generally fairly well versed in the topic area, but it doesn't hurt to define unusual acronyms the first time you use them. Also, just because I can follow technical debate it doesn't mean that you need to be a spewtron with a million cards to impress me. Especially in PF I tend to appreciate a slower, more well reasoned case over a ton of carded claims any day.

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag - not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop if you're stuck with me as a judge : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, If you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask.

Good luck, have fun, and learn things.

Partnership Manager, Center for the Collaborative Classroom (2021-Present)
Supervisor, Broward County Debate Initiative (2017-2021)
DOF, Cypress Bay HS (2010-2017)

2022 Update: Excited to be a speech judge at the 2022 TOC. I have over 20 years of competing and coaching experience. As a competitor, I was the 2004 NSDA National Champion in Impromptu Speaking and 2004 Texas State Champion in Extemp. In college, I competed in multiple limited prep, public address, and Interp events. And as a coach, I coached multiple national finalists and champions in all speech events-at TOC, NSDA, and many local and state competitions. I am a big fan of clean performances, relevant topics, and most importantly, competitors who visibly enjoy their performances. Good luck!

While PF was not around when I was a competitor from 2000-2004, I was a competitive LD Debater in high school and then competed for 4 years of Parli in college before I became a coach at Cal State Long Beach in 2008 and then the DOF at Cypress Bay High School in 2010, where I coached multiple PF teams to success at national tournaments across the country including championships at Emory, Blue Key, and Glenbrooks. I now run the largest county-wide implementation of debate (almost 15,000 students) in Broward County, Florida.

it has been awhile since I’ve judged rounds at a national tournament, but judge locally all of the time and was the Co-Director of the Champion Briefs Institute for the past few summers (where I judged and coaches LOTS of PF).

i love PF because of the teamwork, straight-forward argument structure, and real world impacts. The round is yours and I have no specific structural or stylistic preferences. I appreciate clear roadmaps and weighing. And most importantly, to have a very clear picture of what I am voting for at the end of the round! Have fun and enjoy

Hi, I'm the Director of Speech and Debate at Poly Prep.

I did 8 years of policy debate in HS & College. I started my career coaching college policy at NYU, was then the Director of Debate at Byram Hills HS, and now have been at Poly for the last 5 years.

I see rounds as technical applications that interact with each other and split out a winner. My goal as the judge is to be the least involved with the decision I make as possible. The more you let this happen for me, the happier you will be with speaker points.

I have no preferences in the types of arguments you run - but make sure to provide a framework for how to evaluate said arguments.

**2020 TOC add-on:

I have been on the sideline from judging for the last several years due to health issues that limited the use of my hands. I am so pumped to be able to judge again. That being said - in order to make sure I have a correct flow, if you are going too fast for my hands to catch up (which for PF should be fine, but just so you know), I will unmute and say 'slower'.

Jon Williamson

B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. & Taxation LL.M Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law

Experience:

Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010

Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events

Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:

I will judge the flow

Weigh your impacts at the end

Don't be mean at all

Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name @gmail.com) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.