Nick Abbott Paradigm

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

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

Public Forum, LD, and overall guidance:

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

Offline roadmaps please.

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

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

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

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

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

PF:

As a former debater I place a heavy emphasis on evidence/contention repetition and presentation.

I will not hesitate to ask for your evidence so keep it handy.

Congress:

For speakers I have a high preference on referring to previous speakers and building and progressing the debate.

For presiding officers I look at your speaker management and ability to track time and keep the debate moving forward.

I was a four year policy debater in high school, but that was more than 30 years ago. I aim to be tabula rasa. I appreciate clear explanations of arguments and how they interact with other arguments made by partners and opponents.

I have more than 3 years judging experience.

I prefer speakers not speak too fast and use understandable talk speed.

I am a parent judge with about 6 years of experience judging Public Forum debates

Speak clearly and do not spread

I attempt to flow the round,it helps if you signpost your arguments

I have been judging debate and individual events for around 7 years, so I would say that I am experienced. I am a university professor, so make sure your logic is sound. Speed is fine, but make sure you are clear. I will yell clear if you are not clear. Mumbling fast is not the same as speaking fast. I am fine with voting on theory positions, as long as they are warranted in the round and are proven to be voting issues. In my experience, few debaters are able to propperly identify articulated abuse in the round. Most of all, enjoy the round and enjoy the process without worrying about the outcome! 

I consider myself a myself a flay judge (flow/lay). I prefer that you don't spread too fast, as then I won’t be able to understand your points. Make sure to talk slowly, and please do not yell or be overly aggressive. Whatever you say should have merit and whatever you say should add value to the debate. For Speaker points, I’m looking for good overall decorum and calm collected speakers. Other than that good luck!

I judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round throughout the speeches and how each argument is weighed by each team. I prefer that you speak clearly so I can understand.

I have judged for Public Forum for years now, judging at the highest level in nationally regarded tournaments like Berkeley, Stanford, and the Tournament Of Champions.

Despite all of this, I strongly dislike spreading, value criterion arguments and the like. I believe in the good old Crossfire debate style that made Public Forum famous in the first place. Speak clear, loud, and well. Enunciate your words. Explain clearly why I should care about what you are saying. The better speaker you come across as, the more likely I will vote for you.

I have strong distaste for preposterous arguments. Your arguments should be backed up by evidence. The more evidence, the better.

I am a parent judge for the last 4 years my kids have been competing in debate, and judge usually 3 times per season.

General

I don't favor jargon or technicalities, I prefer to be persuaded with logic and evidence, not theatrics, technical details or showmanship.

I’m fine with people watching the round as long as they are not a distraction. I would ask a spectator to leave if I felt they werent there to watch to debate politely and were distracting me or the debaters.

Speed: I rather you speak clearly and articulately. If I can follow you and your logic, then you cannot persuade me.

Speaker points: Things that will improve your speaker points are speaking clearly, responding effectively, making great eye contact. Speaking versus reading a script, and making your points easy to understand. Debating well is about making your points with logic and evidence, and performing well in the cross fires.

Evidence: If a team calls for a card you should be able to fairly promptly give it to them. If for some reason you don’t have a card I’m fine with you giving a PDF if you’ve already highlighted what you read in the PDF.

Please don’t hand an entire PDF over to your opponents and say you summarize like 5 pages of it because there is no way they can read that. In other words if you are reading a summary of a card and it’s 2 sentences you shouldn’t hand your opponents a card or PDF with three paragraphs highlighted.

If teams read a card and cannot produce it I will take it off my flow automatically. If their opponents then argue that not having cards you read is unethical and I should drop you I will definitely consider that argument.

Prep: Keep track of it.

Additionally: this shouldn't have to be said but of course don’t be rude, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc

I am Parent Judge and I have experience in judging LD and PF for about 3 years. I like crisp and clear speaking during debate. Fast or slow does not matter as long as I can understand. I prefer to listen to actual facts rather than just theory. Please be respectful of your opponents. Off-time roadmaps helps me while judging and I believe will help the candidates also from speaker point of view.

Please introduce yourself and introduce topic in 1-2 sentence .

Arguments- Back them up with good evidence, data , analysis.

Cross fire- Be respectful and stick to the points

Speaker points - Clear concise with moderate pace speaking , good performance in crossfire will get highest speaker points.

Enjoy debate and have fun.

Please reach out to me if you have any questions.

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

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

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.

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/

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

I am a lay parent judge.

Please slow down and make you sure enunciate, and explain all your points thoroughly. English is not my first language so if you speak too quickly or use jargon, I will not be able to follow you clearly. In addition, please make your speeches as organized as possible to make it easier to judge.

I award speaker points based off of how well you speak, but I vote according to how well I think the arguments are made and responded to. Evidence is important, but I often also prefer logic.

I am not by any means a flow judge. I don't even really know what a paradigm is (my daughter wrote this for me).

Best of luck to both teams!

Stevens High School (South Dakota) '19 | MIT '23

I did five years of high school policy debate. For those not intimately familiar with the (nearly extinct) South Dakotan policy debate circuit, it tended to be more traditional in the earlier years of my debate experience (a K aff was essentially unheard of), and slowly transitioned into a circuit which was more comfortable with K (affs) and national circuit-style debate. This does mean that my preferences for arguments tend to lean towards policy arguments, but I am open to and will vote on anything. It also means that I know very little about the high-theory of various kritiks—if you run these, please use less jargon and more direct, leyman explanations. I am also not distinctly involved with the current debate topics too much, meaning that I will not have an understanding of the zeitgeist of the current topic. This should not hinder you if you explain arguments well, but do note it.

I have mixed feelings about email chains. Too often, I think, they are used as excuses by teams to not actually speak well, signpost, or enunciate. I think the best debaters are ones who actually slow down and perform the rationale of the responses cleanly on the flow, and balance the interplay. I also won't weigh a wall of cards if all of them make essentially the same claim unless you explicitly explain why they are different or important. Quality of evidence over quantity. I would still like to be on the email chain—alanyzhu@mit.edu

Generally, tech over truth—although, of course, your evidence should have warrants. Beyond that, I have one major objection, which is debate math. In my opinion, the source should do the analysis for you if it is a relevant implication from the source, and, as a mathematics major at MIT, it is much harder for me to buy the accuracy of statistical analysis done by non-experts. I do my best to vote entirely on the flow; obviously, as a human being, I can't promise you that my understanding of the world won't seep into my decision, but I will note that the easiest way for you to deter that from happening is keeping the flow nice and clean for me to follow. The more analysis I have to do about whether not a specific argument responds correctly to another one, the more variable the process is. Take the power out of my hands.

T — I like good T debate. However, I think if a negative team is going for topicality, it should be a priori and therefore all 5 minutes of the 2NR. If you have enough doubts on the T flow that you're not comfortable spending all 5 minutes on T, then you probably shouldn't close on it. (Also, unless negative is very, very blatantly abusive, T is not RVI.)

Be nice! Debate should feel like a community. Excluding others or being exasperated with your opponents will not get you good speaks. (In that vein, don't ask me if I am going to disclose/disclose speaks. I will say what I am comfortable with and what the situation calls for.)

I tend to keep prep.

Please ask me more questions so I can add to this paradigm! Future debaters will thank you.