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.

If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!

Just some preliminary information. I debated for North Allegheny High School in Pennsylvania in PF for four years, and currently attend the University of Michigan. I did a lot of national circuit debating, including some invitationals, round robins, and the rest, but also spent a lot of time on the Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania state circuits. If you know much about PA debate, that’s a striking difference in technicality and perception of how Public Forum debate should be. So I’m open to basically all kinds of PF.

How I evaluate rounds:

1.     If you develop framework and effectively argue/extend it throughout the round, that is the first area I will evaluate. It will determine how I view the round and how I reconcile arguments. Have clear warrants and discussion about framework when there is clash (which there definitely should be).

2.     I’ll take a look at the offense on both sides of the flow and how they have been extended. Turns and impacts are what I usually vote off of, but make sure you extend the warrants to those impacts in order for me to evaluate them. I only weigh offense extended through summary AND final focus, including turns (but not defense: rebuttal to FF is fine for that). I’ll say it again: extend offense through summary and FF.

3.     WEIGHING. WEIGHING. WEIGHING. Please weigh your arguments. I know everyone tells you to do so and you’ve probably picked up rounds not weighing your arguments very well. Not with me. Tell me why your arguments are more important and relevant than your opponents and give me reasons why. Or else I’ll be taking impacts and making my own decisions on which I prefer, at which point debaters get my decision back and think they got screwed. Both you as a debater and me as a judge don’t want that, trust me.

4.     How do the impacts fit into the framework debate established in point 1? That matters to me because framework determines how I view the round. Its dope when debaters link impacts back to the framework you’ve developed, so do that.

Evidence:

I’m a big believer in debaters working out evidence issues in round. If an indict is read and not responded to, the card is dropped. If an indict is read and effectively responded to, I weigh it. Really simple. I only call for evidence in three instances:

1.     Someone tells me to look at the evidence

2.     I need it to make a decision (probably cause you didn’t weigh in the round)

3.     I think its utter BS and can’t believe it.

If I think the card checks out, I weigh it. If its BS/misquoted, I drop the card and am more prone to drop you cause I hate BS cards. As for evidence challenges: I really hate them but if you truly believe they are screwing you with the card, go for it.

Miscellaneous:

- I don’t flow cross so if something important happens in cross, bring it up in later speeches.

- I’m good with speed but don’t spread or anything like that.

- I’m not a big fan of theory or K’s and whatnot, but that is because I never learned much about them. So if it’s a well-warranted shell, I’ll buy it.

- I buy everything, no matter how unique, if its well warranted and well argued. I love the well-written and debated unique contention.

- Be funny but don’t force it. I appreciate good humor.

- Don’t be rude; it’s just debate that’s no excuse to scream or be condescending.

- I will disclose if I’m allowed to.

- Ohio State trash talk is greatly appreciated and probably worth an extra speaker point. 

- If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. You all should know everything you can about me.

Good luck and Go Blue.

Debate Experience

West Allis Central High School (in Milwaukee, WI)- 3 yrs (Policy)

I have been participating either through debating or judging for most of the last 16 years.

If I said I'm trying to be as clean of a slate as possible when judging, I'd be lying. I vote on mostly everything as long as there are good arguments made and carried through the final speeches.

Things that will upset me and make me want to leave.

• The spray and pray (You just make random args with no content just for the sake of making them)
• When you try to spread (speed read), but can't keep it clear. If I look confused, I am. I can keep up with your speed if reasonable. The more I judge, the more I see the students getting faster and faster to just get cards on the page rather than advancing their arguments and making strong arguments. If you're reading fast just to get cards out so you can call your opponent out for dropping them, that's bad debate.
• When you run arguments incompletely, and decide to go for it (i.e. Counterplans with no CP text, DAs with no link or uniqueness or impact, T with no standards or voters)
• If you stand up there and say nothing during your speech

I love clash, clash is fun. I can't be mad at a passive-aggressive CX or debate because I was notorious for that, but when you show your whole behind then it gets awkward and I will probably dock your speaks if it's unwarranted.

The one thing I love more than clash is when the debater does the work for me. This is often achieved through good line by lines and impact calcs.

Performance debates, T, and weird alts are fine. Kritiks are off-the-wall for me, so run it slow for me.

Theory and framework debates- I need you to definitely slow down on these arguments if you want me to flow everything and get a good understanding of the arguments. These also need an impact calculus.

I've been a Nat Circuit PF/LD/Policy judge, a NAUDL policy judge, and a HS policy debater.

In case you read this, good for you. I assume most of you won't, which is fine but then don't expect high speaks.

I debated PF in high school and currently debate and coach parliamentary debate with the Speech and Debate Team at the University of Illinois.

General Notes

I am a flow judge who appreciates clash. I am definitely tech over truth and will evaluate any argument so long as it's fully flushed out and warranted (although truth is nice to have on your side). Please make sure to weigh and compare impacts within the debate so you don’t force me to intervene.

I’m fine with speed. I will shout “clear” if I’m not keeping up.

Anything you expect me to vote on needs to get extended through to the end of the debate.

I’m fine with roadmaps being off-time and would like them to be detailed.

I tend to like…

· Contentions that have clearly articulated link stories and impacts

· Impact calculus

· Systemic/environmental impacts

· Proven abuse on T

· Final focuses that explain “Why we win if we win what we win,” not just a list of voters that don’t necessarily interact with the big picture of the debate

I don’t like…

· Card calling - Be smart about it. Most of the time it doesn't matter and just slows down the debate. Arguing your cards are better because they’re X amount of time more recent is usually not helpful either. I will evaluate your argument, but I prefer debaters to engage on substance.

· Fiating extra-topical planks/contention

You will lose if…

· Any intentional “isms”, or accidental ones not corrected by apologizing

· Not accommodating me or your opponents we say “slow” or “clear”

Speaker Points

30: You’re the best speaker I expect to see at the tournament

28.5 to 29.5: I expect you to break at this tournament

27 to 28: Somewhat unclear, minor mistakes

26-26.5: Very unclear, major mistakes

Below 26: Lots of major mistakes or you did/said something offensive

I will drop your speaker points if you are rude to your opponent or hog crossfire without giving your opponent a chance to ask a question.

I was a high school policy debater back when Ronald Reagan was president. Since 2013, in my "spare time," I have coached public forum. (My day job is working as a law professor.)

Speed doesn't bother me one way or another, but you do need to be clear. I want you to explain to me not just why you win an argument but why the argument wins the round. I'm open to basically any sort of argument, so long as it's not racist, sexist, etc. I try to listen hard to what your evidence actually says; smart analysis of evidence counts for a lot to me, and conclusory evidence doesn't count for much; paraphrased evidence typically counts for even less. Establishing the analytic links in your arguments also matters a lot to me. And weighing is super-important, as early as possible.

I prefer for the second rebuttal to spend some time responding to the first rebuttal and not merely responding to the opponent's case. In particular, if the first rebuttal reads any turns on your case, I will expect the speaker giving the second rebuttal to respond to those turns. If the second rebuttal speaker does not respond to turns, I will consider them dropped. And I don't need the summary speech to extend defense that has not been responded to. I will count defensive arguments for whatever they are worth if they are dropped.

Likes: Depth of analysis, engagement with the other side's strongest arguments.

Dislikes: Cases that are just strings of blippy half-cards, numbers thrown around without context. Don't hammer on particular numbers without telling me what precisely those numbers mean and how they specifically link to your or your opponents' advocacy. (Please don't read impact cards that say things like a two standard-deviation decrease in democracy leads to a three percent rise in infant mortality. What does that even mean?)

I've noticed that a couple of my preferences differ from those of many other judges I've encountered on the national circuit, and you should probably know that. First, and probably of greatest significance, I am far more skeptical of quantitative impacts than are many national-circuit judges. You should expect me to discount any large number that appears in an impact card unless you present evidence of each link that is logically necessary to the occurrence of that impact. That doesn't mean I won't vote on quantitative impacts -- I vote on them all the time -- but when weighing them I am unlikely to take large numbers in impact cards at face value. Correlatively, I am far more open to voting on qualitative arguments than are many national-circuit judges. But do actually make an argument; don't just give me some conclusory tag. Second, I am more open to theory arguments than are many national-circuit PF judges. But you have to actually make the argument. Don't just tell me your opponents are doing something unfair; explain why it violates something that should be a norm of debate and why the proper remedy is to drop them, disregard an argument they're making, or whatever.

Former PF debater 2005-2006

Former PF coach 2008-2018

I judge on the flow and strive to intervene as little as possible. In summary and final focus, tell me how your impacts compare to those of your opponent.

Try not to get bogged down in minutiae. I very rarely find myself deciding a round on specific pieces of evidence or framework debates.

Treat your opponents with respect. The fastest way to lose my ballot is to be rude or sexist.

Don't spread. A little speed is fine, but remember that this is a public speaking activity. A member of the public should be able to comprehend your speech.

I will flow and consider non-topical arguments, but I should mention that I do not often find them persuasive.

I am a PF "mommy" judge .

Do not assume I know anything, explain everything!!

My children say I like warrants and impacts...

If you want me to vote on it please make sure it is in summary and final focus and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.

Revised April 11, 2018

Sandy Berkowitz

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

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

Public Forum

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

General issues

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

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

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

Evidence Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic issues

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

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

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

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

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

Delivery and Decorum

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

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

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

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

World Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy and LD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

PUBLIC FORUM

To me, one of the key aspects to Public Forum debate is that it should be accessible to the PUBLIC, with a (hopefully) wide scope. As such, here's a few suggestions if you find yourself in one of my rounds:

If you put a blatantly and unabashadly unfair burden on your opponents (my opponents can only win if they do "X"), the odds will not be in your favour.

If you obviously deliberately misinterpret your opponent's contentions in a cheap attempt to turn them to your side, the odds will not be in your favour. Trust me, as judges we see through this.

Off time roadmaps waste my time and yours. We already know you're going to start on your opponent's side of the flow and move to your own if time exists. You don't need to say it. If you're doing something else, THEN please let me know.

HOWEVER: In speech road-mapping is very important during Rebuttal and Summary. Don't tell me "extend my _______ card across the flow" without telling me which contention it is a part of. I don't write quickly or clearly enough to be able to locate it on my flow before you move on to your next thing. Trust me, this is for your benefit. Just tell me which contention it is a part of and the assertion that it makes.

Weighing: It's great if we can weigh tangible impacts on both sides, but that's not always going to be the case. Let's use the example of lives (tangible) vs. quality of life (intangible). The side with "Lives" usually just says "you can't have quality of life without a life" and leave it at that. The groups impacted by the "lives" evidence probably have at least a bit of overlap with the groups impacted by the "Quality of life" evidence, and in that overlap the above statement makes sense, but what about the groups that don't overlap? How do you want me to weigh those? I want to see thought put into your rebuttals, summaries, and final foci about the reasoning behind how and why things are weighed in the round against your opponents, not just standby statements. Because most of what we deal with in Public Forum has to do with real people, if you can link your arguments to effects on said real people, that can only be a good thing on my flow.

If you talk so fast or so unclearly that I cannot understand you *cough* policy *cough*, your contentions will not go on my flow. This is not to say that speed is a bad thing; if you are talking quickly AND clearly to expand and clarify your arguments, FANTASTIC. I love it. If you are talking fast purely to add more cards to your side of the flow, the odds will not be in your favour. Public Forum is not Policy Lite. I will say "Volume" or "Clear" once. If you see me outright stop flowing and drop my pen, then your arguments are not ending up flowed for the above reasons.

Conduct: We all get excited and a bit heated during rounds, but if you are shouty and rude to your opponents, then your chances of winning a speaking award will tank. I am judging the debate on the substance, so if you are shouty and rude but still present the best arguments, you will win, but your speaks will suffer. Terribly. HOWEVER: If your in-round ethos is atrocious and deplorable enough, I will award you the loss, a double 20, AND I will talk to your coach. You are humans first and debaters second. So are your opponents. If you can't treat them like equals then you have failed basic human decency and will not win my round.

ALSO! Cx is for questioning, not making grandstanding statements. I also frown on steamrolling your opponents during crossfire, not allowing them to finish answering your questions or not allowing them questions of their own. Again, not cool man. (See above paragraph for potential consequences)

Fun Stuff: If you end up with 3 or fewer seconds of prep time before your Final Focus, and you use it, I will award you an extra .5 speaker points. I have no reasoning behind this other than that I find it entertaining. Similarly, if both teams call Aff's contentions PROTENTIONS then I will award all speakers an extra .5 speaker points

Lincoln Douglas

Spreading: For the love of all that is sane, DO NOT SPREAD. I have tried many times, but I cannot understand you when you do it, and I guarantee that you will lose the round if I cannot understand you. Spreading is for butter, not high school debate.

Impacts: I'm generally fine with anything you want to impact to, as long as you can show me some very strong links. For example, I've never seen a strong enough link to give anyone access to Thermonuclear Holocaust or global mass extinction. You should also always impact your impacts back to your value/criterion. Something as simple as “... and that isn’t moral” would suffice (assuming your value is morality). Remind us what we’re here for and what lenses we’re looking through

Ts: Probably not a great idea in my rounds, tbh. I don’t think we have time for shell arguments in this category, I’d rather see the actual resolution debated rather than some weird philosophical diatribe that we have to discard literally everything your opponent said because __________

If you start off your NC (or AC for some reason) with reasons why we can’t (or shouldn’t) debate the round at all, I will do everything in my power to find a way to vote you down. Debate the resolution.

If you have evidence that specifically mentions methods in HS debate (usually these are written by former high school debaters who now coach from college), I will call for that card and if it is not in a peer-reviewed journal from an unaffiliated author, I will vote you down.

This activity is about researching, analyzing evidence, and creating arguments. I really don't like it when you're running framework and contentions that it is very apparent you didn't write and maybe don't even understand.

Conduct: Don't tell me your opponent is racist, or sexist, or ableist, or any other -ist because of an argument they're running. You may say that their case advocates against equity in any of those areas, or you may call their specific arguments names; but never the human you are participating in this activity with.

So to conclude.... If you actually debate the resolution you'll probably be fine.

Policy

I don’t/won’t judge policy. Take that statement as you will.

4 Years Competing on the National Circuit & New Jersey Circuit in Public Forum, 4th year coaching

1) For the love of God, Weigh. Your. Arguments.

2) Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll call out "Clear" indicating you need to slow down.

3) I'll believe anything that goes untouched on the flow.

4) Default to Util if there's a lack of substantive framework debate.

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 not flow off the doc.

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

----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:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- 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.

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

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

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

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

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

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

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

Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
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: Very strong ability. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

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

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

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

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

I am affiliated with duPont Manual High School as the head speech and debate coach. I used to debate college LD, so I am familiar with the general format of most all debate. I always say that CX>LD>PF>CON...if that's not agreeable with you, then that's unfortunate, but that's just how my hierarchy Debate chain/list works. I respect all debate divisions, so please do not misunderstand

1. I enjoy K Debate, especially if it gives insightful

Anthro K’s are not as convincing to me.

2. Do not use abbreviated jargon yet because I am still learning how to apply jargon to my RFD. For example, use CONDITIONAL instead of CONDO, or Topical(ity) instead of T, or PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTER PLANS BAD instead of PICS… Sorry, but it will make the ultimate difference because I will be able to follow my flow/your narrative.

3. I am a flow judge.

4. I will call clear if I cannot understand you, and I won’t take off of speaker points after the first time.

5. Please stand to MY RIGHT side because I am deaf in my left ear. SO, if you are facing me, please spread or speak standing to the left side of the room. I will always try to sit in the center of the debate.

6. I have had experience judging CX at UPenn, PF at several national tournaments as well as in Chengdu, China, and I used to debate in LD in high school and at IU for a year. I have been coaching at duPont Manual HS in Louisville, KY for 4 years.

7. Theory Debate…I will deal with it, however, it makes me feel inferior or confused or . It just might take me a bit longer to articulate an RFD, so don’t ty and an endearing candidness - it's so adorable and

8. I love progressive LD, and spreading is fine with me.

9. LOUD, CLEAR, and SIGN POST along the way. Also, give me an off time road map before each speech, please. Traditional debate is wonderful too; however, I DO look for SOLVENCY AND COUNTER PLANS are also valued by me.

10. For PF, I value both long term and short impacts, but I need the debaters to weigh the round and tell me what i prefer in the end. Make it very clear to me what your voters are. For LD, I need you to uphold your framework and give me the Roll of the Ballot. Make it very clear, and repeat it for me so I am sure to catch it/them.11. I love topicality; an overview

I can take speed, but please be clear. I encourage progressive debate, so I will not dock speaks for calling clear. Therefore, I will call clear until I can understand you. Please take the time to adapt if I call clear.
I base speaker points on several different factors. This includes clarity of speaking, presentation, projection, and the ability to debate strategically. Impact your arguments and tell me why they matter. Pick the most important arguments and tell me the reasons I should vote for it. Also, signposting is a must.

If you have any questions please contact me at 502-572-4635 or erica.cooper@jefferson.kyschools.us.

I am a debate coach who has judged all types of debate for nearly 30 years. In recent years, I have focused mainly on public forum and occasionally Lincoln Douglas.

When judging public forum, I adopt the point of view of someone who is conversant in basic terminology and concepts but without any preconceived opinions on the merits of the resolution. The team that is more effective in using evidence and argumentation to convince me that their side should prevail gets the win.

I value clarity and precision in argumentation. While I can flow and comprehend more rapid delivery (I have coached policy), I think that public forum is not well suited to speed. If you are speaking rapidly because there is a lot you really need to cover, I am ok with that. If you are speaking rapidly because you feel it will confuse the other team, I will be annoyed. If you are speaking rapidly because you think it will impress me, it will not.

Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?

The summary is an important speech because it tells me how your side sees the entire round now that constructives and rebuttals are on the flow. The final focus is best spent weighing the round and telling me why your side prevails.

Crossfires are not speeches, so anything from a crossfire that you want on the flow must still be mentioned in a subsequent speech. However, I listen carefully to all crossfires, so I will be aware of whether their contents are being accurately characterized.

In Lincoln-Douglas, I prefer clarity and quality over speed and quantity. I appreciate direct refutation and line by line analysis. My preference is for a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of the resolution. If given a choice, I would like a round that had fewer but better arguments rather than a spread of arguments that all lack decent development.

I do value the traditional role of LD as the more philosophical type of debate, and the value and value criterion play a unique and helpful role in this. However, I am mindful of the fact that not all resolutions lend themselves to this tradition as well as others do, so I am ok with making adjustments accordingly. If I don't feel I've been given clear reasons why I should vote the way you want me to, I will tend to default to a traditional approach, so having the value and value criterion in place still serves a purpose.

Evidence is important in LD to back up your basic claims, but I'd rather have you give me a couple great cards along with excellent analysis then many cards without it.

In your last speech, please make it very clear to me why I should be convinced by what is on the flow to vote for your side.

I look forward to hearing you debate!

Tom Dunlap

Monte Vista High School, Danville, CA

Ten years judging Lincoln Douglas

Eight years judging other events

I'm an assistant speech and debate coach, a former English teacher with 18 years of experience, a substitute teacher, and a tutor.

I favor a moderate, measured speed of delivery--I detest spreading. I value an eloquent, coherent, well-supported argument over stylistic flash. I prefer the big picture to line-by-line analysis in summary speeches. Conventional arguments are more persuasive to me than kritiks, many of which seem contrived. I flow during the debate.

(she/her/hers)

Speed is fine. Please weigh impacts at the end of the round.

Overall, please make the environment inclusive for everyone. Run arguments that are challenging and that you actually care about/believe in. Have fun!

I try not to intervene as much as possible. This means several things:

1. I will only factor things said in both summary and final focus into my decision. If it is mentioned in only one or not at all, I won't look at it.
2. The exception to the above rule is responses made in rebuttal that were not responded to in summary; i.e., you cannot extend through ink, even if it's some cheese.
3. The exception to the above rule is link turns/disads/any other offensive argumentation made in rebuttal. You have to extend offense.
4. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
5. Extensions must include warrants. Impact extensions won't give you any offense unless you extend links, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

Last updated: 2/7/20 for Berkeley 2020

Affiliation: Harker (2016 - present)

I debated for four years for Foothill (Pleasanton, Calif.) and competed pretty heavily on the national circuit, but never left California except for NDF (two summers) and the ToC (4-3, 2015). To that end, if you’re looking for a short paradigm read, you can assume I’m pretty similar to other first-year outs who make decisions largely based on the flow. Go as fast as you want (I'm good with anything below spreading level!), but look out for cues if I can’t understand what you’re saying (tl;dr: please enunciate clearly). I’ll also disclose and give oral feedback after the round as long as all debaters are okay with that. Additionally, please do not flip for sides/position until I'm in the room.

First and foremost, be kind to one another: to your opponents in CX, to your partner during prep time (don't yell at them! We're all out here trying our best), to any spectators, to the equipment in the room we're using, and to me. If I don't think you're being respectful, it will be reflected both in your speaks and my post-round comments to you.

My most important caveat is I will not evaluate an argument if you don't warrant it. For example, you cannot tell me “Vote Pro because we save ten thousand lives” if you do not actually spend enough time explaining to me *why* that’s the case. This means a handful of things:

1. Every argument / voter in the round should follow claim-warrant-impact. Given that I value warranting the most, I will not give you access to your impact unless you give me a warrant.
2. If the debate is a wash on the impact level, I will vote for the team that has superior warranting. This can be accomplished either through quantity (two warrants vs one), or quality (a particular warrant seems much more intuitive, and is backed by empirics). It all depends on how you weigh for me!
3. While I’d like to say I’m tab / a believer in tech over truth, I am much more likely to vote for intuitive arguments. That said, I ran some pretty sketchy stuff as a debater myself though, so if you have good, carded warrants for WW3 or human extinction, hit me with your best shot — but be cognizant that I will evaluate these arguments with a degree of skepticism.
4. If you run theory, I’ll make my best attempt to listen, but there’s a 99% chance I’m going to have significant difficulty understanding your advocacy. That means you should probably only run theory in the case of serious and obvious abuse.
5. It is impossible to warrant a bigoted argument. That means any racism, homophobia, sexism, elitism, etc. will not be tolerated if I'm sitting in the back of the room -- that stuff has no place in a community as wonderful as ours.
6. It is difficult to give five well-warranted responses to an argument your opponent runs. Quality > quantity.
7. I am much more likely to give you higher speaks if you and your partner do a superior job warranting.

Other random stuff:

No need for an off time roadmap before starting your rebuttal. Please just tell me which side of the flow you're starting on (i.e. whose side of the flow you want me to put the framework debate on).

I’m a big fan of creative frameworks that go beyond “lives are #1” or “net benefits,” such as trend arguments or weighing ST v. LT (or anything that helps to mitigates your opponents’ offense from the get-go).

I hate voting off of buzz words like “economic benefits” and “increased security” — give me good, quantified impacts and empirics to weigh. If you do not weigh for me, then I cannot guarantee I will weigh the way you want me to.

I strongly prefer that the second rebuttal address the 1st rebuttal -- especially if your opponents are reading turns -- but at the end of the day, make the strategic choice you think is best for you and your partner.

I flow old school, with a piece of paper paper and two Pilot G2 pens. I like to think I'm decent at getting everything you say down on the flow, but if something is super important, you might want to slightly slow down (for both the aforementioned reason and rhetorical effect).

I will call for cards if either you/your opponents explicitly tell me to do so in a speech, or if anything sounds exceptionally sketchy. If I think you're misrepresenting your evidence, I reserve the right to drop that card when making my decision.

If you're taking free prep time while your opponents are looking for evidence that you asked for, I will ask you to stop. Similarly, you shouldn't take too long finding evidence for your opponents.

The best summaries / final foci require minimal work on the flow. That means you should feel pretty good about your speech if you just see me drawing extensions for the whole two minutes.

TL;DR — I vote for the team with the better, cleaner narrative. The best way to do that is by weighing and giving me strong warrants.

Lastly, I believe that any spectator should be allowed in the room. Debate is an educational event at heart, and I learned so much by watching varsity teams back in the day. In prelims, I'm happy to ask that spectators not flow / take notes while watching (you can learn a lot by just listening), but in Elims, it's all a part of the game. I will be very disappointed in you if you choose to turn any spectator away, including parents! If you also have an issue with a spectator being distracting in the room during one of your speeches, you should tell me ASAP.

Of course, the most important thing is to have fun. High school debate doesn’t last forever, so enjoy it while you can! Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

I have been a PF coach for 20+ years. To win my ballot you should do the following things.

1. Clearly sign post throughout the round. I do flow but I do not like to spend time looking for the arguments you are addressing.

2. If you have a framework, you need to address it throughout the round. Stating it in the first speech and then not again until final focus will cause me to not weigh it as heavily in the round. I only insert myself into rounds that there is no clear framework or weighing mechanism for the round.

3. I can handle moderate speed as long as you articulate. It is to your benefit that I get all the info I can.

4. I vote on the arguments presented. I will listen to all arguments but you need to make sure they are clearly explained. If I do not understand it I do not vote for it. I will not vote on K in PF

5. Extend arguments not cards. You need to give the argument the card is making just not the author's name when extending.

6. Give me clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win. The focus should be on your case not your opponents.

7. Speaker points are based on how well you present yourself throughout the round. I am a speech and theater teacher and like to see good communication skills. Yelling at me or your opponents is not good communication. Crossfires need to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I rarely give 30’s, those are reserved for truly outstanding persuasive speakers.

I debated Public Forum on the national circuit for 3 years between 2010 and 2013.

I am open minded. Weighing in the final speeches is critical to win my ballot. Just carrying an argument throughout the round and saying "extend" a bunch of times doesn't really do it for me.

Be clean in your argumentation and do your best to engage with your opponents case and arguments. I can follow technical stuff, but don't find it particularly compelling. I appreciate creative approaches to topic though and will reflect it in your speaker points. I wish creativity won rounds but good argumentation is the ultimate decider.

Most importantly, have fun. The best rounds come about when everyone is enjoying themselves.

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

I was a mediocre policy debater in the early 90s for two years. I like constitutional warrants. I can handle flow, but I prefer argument and persuasiveness over speed.

Don't make me feel like I'm choosing between Garbage A and Garbage B. Use some sophistication to convince me think I'm the dumbest guy in the room. Even though I can understand it, I don't like overly complicated jargon (ie the phrase "Non-Inherent T-Shell") that's exclusive to debate. On the other hand, I used to run a lot of counter-plans in policy, so go big or go home with the squirrel and K. Plus, it warms my heart when a team can link a nuclear war impact to a contention.

I really like a lot of debate clash, specifically about evidence. I don't always ask for evidence, but when I do, I ask to see the entire, original, uncut card. I am not a fan of teams throwing knee-jerk requests for evidence at the opposition. I also think its a good idea to have all evidence printed out. I don't flow cross, so if you get ideas for an argument, bring it up in speeches.

Lastly I've been doing this for a few years. Let me judge the round and determine the pacing of the experience. Please don't tell me what to do outside of the rhetoric within your speeches. And for heaven's sake, be respectful to people, both within and without the round.

From Belvidere, IL. I debated Varsity PF and I'm currently an Assistant Coach for Belvidere North High School. 

1. I am a flow judge. 

2. If its not in the summary it shouldnt be in the final focus.

3. Speed is not an issue for me, but remember quality over quantity.

4. I like impact analysis.

5. If framework isnt brought in final focus and summary i dont weigh it. I expect it to be brought up in every speech and the first thing to be addressed. When refutting it dont just tell me not to weigh it actually explain to me the reason why I shouldnt. If there is no framework im assuming its a cost benefit anlysis. 

6. Sign posting is important.

7. No prep time before constructives and for crossfires/grand cross.

8. For the first rebuttle I expect the whole time to be dedicated to refutting not extending. If you are extending do not just restate your contentions.

9. I expect the voting issues to be clear and percise.

10. I will deduct speaker points if you are being rude, sassy, or aggresive. Its just a no.  

11. For evidence you must have the full source. No cut cards. FULL SOURCE. I will not weigh it if you can not provide it to me or your opponents. 

12. If you ask for evidence it will be given to you during YOUR prep time.

13. Absolutely no counter plans. 

national circuit PF for 4 years. Mostly northeast so I follow northeast conventions (you don't need to frontline in second rebuttal, etc). Defense should preferably be extended through summary.

I can flow fast, but I really don't want to. If you speak quickly I'll get mad and stop flowing seriously. You will most certainly be worse off if you spread. If you literally read LD or Policy style I may count it against you in terms of speaking points- you should have done a different activity. 

Speaker points will reflect your decorum in the round as well as your technical/rhetorical ability. If you're rude or unpleasant to judge you will lose speaker points. You will lose more speaker points if you're rude to the other debaters but you get no points for being rude to me. 

As long as there's time I'll give oral RFD with disclosure and answer any questions. I'll also fill out the ballot with key trigger points. If you have a question please ask but phrase it in a way that assures me you're not trying to get me to change my decision (I won't.)

Be lighthearted. If that means humor by all means go for it. If all it means is that you project confidence without sternness, that's also great. Please make the round fun for me to judge. 

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

I prefer that teams send cases before constructive and speech docs before rebuttal.

About Me

I competed on the PF national circuit from 2010 to 2012. I coached on and off from 2012 to 2016, when I became the PF coach at Hackley School in NY until June 2019. After being out of debate for 4.5 years, I judged two tournaments in February 2024. I'm not coaching, so don't assume I know anything about the March topic.

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

If you want me to vote off your argument, extend the link and impact in summary and FF, and frontline defense. (If there is some muddled defense on your argument, I can resolve that if your weighing is much better and/or the other team's argument is also muddled.)

Give me comparative weighing. Don't just say, "We outweigh on scope." Tell me why you're outweighing the other impact(s). Most teams I vote for are generally doing much more work on the weighing debate, such as responding to the specific reasoning in their opponent's weighing or providing me with metaweighing arguments that compel me to vote for them.

If you say something offensive, I will lower your speaks and might drop you.

Specific Preferences

1. Second rebuttal should cover all turns, and address defense on the argument(s) you go for in summary and FF. If it doesn't cover defense, that's not a deal breaker – just makes it harder for me to vote off.

2. Extend defense in summary and FF. For example, if second rebuttal didn't cover some defense on the argument(s) extended, first summary should extend that defense. Obviously, If second rebuttal didn't frontline an argument, then first summary doesn't need to extend relevant defense.

3. Collapse and weigh in summary and FF. The best teams I've judged typically go for one argument in the second half of the round because collapsing allows them to do thorough line-by-line link and impact extensions, frontline defense, and weigh.

4. Give me the warranting behind your evidence. I do not care if some author says X is true, but I care quite a bit about why X is true. I prefer warrants over unexplained empirics.

5. Do not give me a roadmap – tell me where you're starting and signpost. Make sure you're clear in signposting. I don't want to look all over my flow to figure out where to write.

6. I have some experience judging theory. If you run it, make sure it's actually checking abuse. I'll be less inclined to vote off the shell if you read it because of a relatively minor offense.

7. I've never judged a K. At the very least, it should be topical, and you'll have to accept that I'll determine how to adjudicate it.

8. If you are arguing about how the resolution affects domestic politics (e.g. political capital, elections, Supreme Court, etc.), please have very good warranting as to why your argument is probable. I have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments because I strongly believe that most debate resolutions are unlikely to impact U.S. politics to the extent that you can say specific legislation or electoral results likely do or do not happen. If you do not think you can easily make a persuasive case about why your politics argument is likely, please do not read it or go for it.

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.

In high school I debated Policy for one year and Public Forum for three. I will flow, but I haven't been very involved in debate since HS so treat me as somewhere between a flow and a lay judge. Signpost and be as clear as possible.

I like it when debaters introduce framework early in the round and weigh using their framework late in the round. That being said, don't waste your time with framework that isn't helping you. Just make sure you're weighing in the later speeches and giving me easy ways I can vote for your team.

If you think your opponent in lying about their evidence, say so and I'll look at it.

Impacts are how you win the round. Unwarranted impacts don't have weight. Everything I'm expected to vote on should be extended through every speech. You're in PF, so you're likely defending the topic/the squo. CPs and Ks probably don't have a place in PF, if you really think it's the best way to approach the topic I'll consider it, but you're definitely setting yourself back by doing so. I'll vote on anything if you give me a valid reason to, this means T needs to have proven abuse/lost ground. C-X isn't flowed. I time everything and stop flowing once you're out of time. Ask me stuff after the round if any of my RFD isn't clear.

On card calling: Think before you do it. I've seen, like, 2 rounds ever where card calling made the difference in who won. It slows down the whole round and is likely not necessary. If you're going to make the same arguments regardless, just make the arguments. This noted, I won't vote differently just due to card calling, just a personal preference.

The contents of each team's summary speech are entirely up to their own discretion. I do not bias myself based on summary content other than through the self-inherent advantages and disadvantages of how you choose to allocate your time.

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

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

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

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

I will make decisions that are good if:

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

I will make decisions that are bad if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other specifics, please ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick paradigm- I feel I am strongest in judging interpretation. I enjoy Informative and Oratory speeches as this gives me an opportunity to learn what is important to the performer. My least favorite event to judge is extemporaneous as I am not well versed in politics.

No, I don't care which side you sit on.

As of 2019, 15 years of debate experience as a student (Policy), judge (All events), and coach (PF)

Prefers traditional style debate. Evidence should be used to support arguments, but articulate analysis and explanation of your argument and why it is important is key

Tabula Rasa - I try to stay as neutral as possible on arguments. This means I expect you to explain your arguments and impacts during every round and you cannot assume that I will credit you with information that you did not say or extrapolate your argument/impact for you.

Prefer a well structured narrative carried through the round to a bunch of arguments which are kicked in later speeches - but some strategic collapse is fine

Impacts should be realistic - I am not voting on extinction

I do not like speed and speakers should be articulate. I don't believe in spreading because it destroys the educational value of debate and students' ability to interact in a meaningful way.

Stick to time

Be civil. There is a difference between being confident and condescending.

I almost never make a decision until the final two speeches. Weighing your impacts is important. I will not vote on something you did not say (and continue to say until the end)

Email: jessmhilbrich@gmail.com

 I am a lay judge.

PF Paradigm:

The number one priority of Public Forum Debate is that it remains accessible at all times.

Debaters are expected to time themselves and their oppenents. If there is some discrepancy on time, your speaker points will be in jeopardy. Please be responsible.

Go at whatever speed you are comfortable as long as it is not spreading.

I will flow what is said during speech, but not crossfire. I expect you to extend arguments from crossfire if you want to use them.

You must provide your win conditions. I need a framework to interpret how the round will be judged. That also means that weighing needs to be considers as well.

Don't assume definitions especially in the resolutions.

I will look at evidence only in the case that both teams appear to have evidence that contradict each other.

InterPA

Tech

Diction matters more in online competition than in face to face competition. In synchronous rounds, please emphasize your diction more.

You are welcome to ask for feedback regarding your placement within the camera.

I'd recommend you make sure the camera is perpendicular to your eyes/face. The angle coming from below sometimes makes viewing facial involvement unclear.

Preferences

Content Warning before your pieces. If you have any belief that your content could upset someone, you owe it to your audience to prepare us. Plot twists are not worth hurting your audience.

I really evaluate the quality of the cut/writing in close rounds.

A cut needs to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. The beginning means the characters, relationships, and problems are introduced. A perfect teaser has these element. The middle shows the characters attempting and failing to resolve a problem. The end discusses whether characters resolve or fail to resolve the problem and then what happen because of that.

Public address speeches follow some kind of previewed and road mapped structure to the speech.

Event Specific

Info

I don't evaluate lack of VAs as negative. I evaluate overused or nonhelpful VAs as a negative.

I don't really care about how you move in your speech.

OO

I follow PCS and CES structures the best.

I am sucker for empirics. I don't believe something is inherently a problem that affects everyone until you show me with a source that it affects people more than yourself. For example, if your speech is about how "We say no too much," you better prove beyond a doubt that we empirically say "No" a lot.

DI

I'm kind of over traumatizing DIs. DI is my favorite event though.

I value verisimilitude in the characterization and the blocking.

HI

Characterization matters the most. I value clear characters and efficient movement between the characters.

I also really pay attention to the resolution of the problem in HI. If the problem is resolved in a sentence or through an apparent unknown force. I blame the cut.

Duo

I hate how its done digital and really hope no one assigns it to me.

Blocking should highlight the conflict between the characters.

I find speaking towards the camera instead of pretending the two are in the same piece to be more believable.

POI

Characterization should be clear. I shouldn't doubt the differences between the characters.

Binder tech or lack of binder tech is irrelevant to me.

Extemp:

Tech

Time yourself for synchronous rounds. I don't trust internet connections to be consistent to allow me to give you effective time signals.

I can tell if you're reading off of your computer.

Sitting or Standing don't matter to me.

Preferences

I will flow the speech.

I don't look down on speeches past 7:00, but 7:20 is a little risk

Link back to the question always. Tell me why you are answering questions.

Fluency matters insomuch that I can understand you. Short pauses and disruptions will not be marks against, but if I cannot follow what you are saying then I will have trouble evaluating your speech.

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

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.

I'm an administrator at Northland Christian that has been traveling with our debate team for over 10 years. Over the years, I have judged a variety of events like PF, Congress, and IEs. Each year, I judge at a couple of tournaments for our school like Berkeley and Glenbrooks. When making a decision, I will look mainly at content and style. Students should not speak too fast and should make logical arguments throughout the debate; they should be considerate to their opponents and the judge throughout the round. I will not keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, but I will take notes to help me make a decision. For Isidore Newman, I will be judging Worlds. I have seen a couple of practice rounds and understand the style and expectation of students in this format, but this will be the first time I judge this event.

Been involved in debate for over 20 years. Coached mostly PF and Congress, however have judged all events at just about every level.

Speed is fine in LD and policy, but in pf do not sacrifice clarity for speed.

Theory should ONLY ever be used if there is a real violation in the round that skews it greatly.

I like numbers, I will favor an economic impact over a general good of humanity argument. No warm fuzzies.

I HATE performance in any way shape or form. This will end the round for me. If you want to do a passion project go do OO.

Debate the topic. Tie your arguments to the topic. As long as you can establish a clear link we are good to go.

Mostly just ask what you want to know, I am pretty open and just like good debate.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

General Background: I'm a current Junior at Duke University and alumna of Fort Lauderdale High school.

PF History: I competed in the Southern Florida Varsity circuit from 2011-2014 in PF. I helped coach and instruct Novices my senior year. I now function as a "helper" from a distance as I'm in college. 

Final Focus: Everything you want me vote on in the round has to be brought in the Final focus (not necessarily the whole motivation behind why its important, just that it is a reason). I will not do the work for you and carry topics through the flow. It would also be helpful for there to be some sort of impact comparison (like define what should be viewed as the greater cost, so I'm not trying to compare apples to oranges  wto determine which is the better fruit) 

Intervention of the Judge: Realistically there will be times in some rounds when a debater might say something that I believe to be false, but if you, as the opponent, don't point out the fallacy of the argument I will not do that for you in my decision. I don't believe in judge intervention. 

Extending arguments: Please extend arguments.  

Personal Pet Peeves:

1. Please do not just say something like "that argument is a Red Herring" without describing quickly what that means and how that's true in this case. This is not for my benefit. I know what these terms mean. What I have found in my judging and debating is that sometimes you as a debater use these terms incorrectly or your opponent doesn't fully understand these terms. By describing how these terms apply to a particular round I can judge more fairly for both teams benefit. 

2. Please be respectful to your opponents. I'm not afraid of the Tab room when it comes to giving lower speaking points due to rudeness. Being respectful really isn't difficult no matter how much you believe to be "smoking" your opponents. 

3. I've been informed that speading has increased in popularity in PF since I left the circuit. I'm perfectly fine with fast speaking, but there's a reason that PF is in a different category than LD. I would really prefer not to have spreading in a round, but if it is I will not punish you for it. Realistically there's a chance I will not catch all parts of the argument and it will only hurt you if I can't understand your argument.  

Public Forum Paradigm

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

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

Don't be offensive.

I come from a PF/Congressional background, with LD experience as a debater for a few tournaments. My paradigm is rather simple. I despise spreading, it's not a good tactic, so please, do NOT do it. I will stop judging you. I want to see clear signposting and separations between contentions. Everything should line back up with your Value and Value Criterion. I want to see that, as it makes your case much stronger and helps you out in the long run.

I am a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I did PF for 4 years in high school for Charlotte Latin.

I'm fine with speed but please don't spread.

Sign post.

Link summary and final focus.

Please weigh.

I competed in PF for four years at Harker and am now a sophomore at Stanford. I'll flow all speeches in the round.

I evaluate framework and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I’ll only vote on voters and issues that are in the final focus. Don’t extend through ink (and if your opponents do that, please extend defense). I don't need the first summary to extend defense if it is not covered by the second rebuttal. Ideally, every voter at the end of the round should be packaged with three things: frontlines, extension of impacts, and weighing of those impacts. Please extend warrants where they are logically required for the impacts you are going for. Be strategic and don't go for everything.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you conduct crossfire, but content trumps style (rigorous argumentation beats pretty speaking). Speed is maybe ok if you’re clear and look out for non-verbal cues. Only do speed if you can manage to avoid sacrificing clarity and quality of argumentation. I also like getting an off-time road map (think about including things like where I should flow overview arguments, which contentions you might frontline in second rebuttal, or breaking down how you’ll attack a one-contention case).

Here are some situations in which I'll intervene:

1. I'll call for evidence if it is disputed in-round, or if there are 2 clashing pieces of evidence that are both extended and not weighed. Don't misrepresent evidence; I may drop the debater if I think the offense is grave.

2. If you don't weigh your impacts against your opponents', then I'm free to make my own conclusions about which ones matter more.

3. If you are blatantly offensive, I'll drop your speaker points and may drop you.

4. Theory is ok to check egregious abuse, though I've noticed that I usually have to do a decent amount of work to vote on it.

5. I'm never entirely sure what to do when critically important internal contradictions arise... so just avoid it

As a side note, regardless of the tournament rules, I will be a bit annoyed if you insist on no spectators in the room (or take any other action that shamelessly puts competition and education at odds). The educational value of watching others debate is immense. We come to exchange ideas, not to withhold them, and this is the part of the activity I have always loved.

Finally, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you're confused about my RFD after the round, I would rather you discuss it with me than to leave feeling dissatisfied; I always grew the most as a debater when I lost rounds.

Good luck!

I am an assistant coach of PF Debate at Charlotte Latin, and a junior at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. I did PF debate for 4 years at Pinecrest High school in North Carolina. I am an Aries

My preferences are straightforward, although I would like to emphasize two points:

First, summary and final focus should be linked. More specifically, voting issues in final focus must be in summary as well.

Second, key-points of crossfire should be brought up again later in a speech. I will only write down CX concessions if they are in a speech.

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I now work in special education and disability care.

"Strike me and I'll give you 30 speaks" -a judge much funnier than me.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity- this goes for any day, any round, any tournament. Run whatever argument you want as long as you link it to your case (yes, this means be topical (on the resolution)). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it.

I don't care about email chains/documents... unless you're running an extremely """progressive""" case. No harm in asking, though.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Roadmaps fine. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!)

That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. You know what the difference is. If I have to call for clarity/speed more than 3 times in a round then I'm going to really be harsh on your speaker points.

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

You're gonna find it very hard to run some form of Disability Pessimism with me and win- this is one of the only biases that I can't ever seen to get past- I am biased towards cases that do work to make a "positive" outcome the most attainable scenario. This doesn't mean don't run arguments that say the world isn't gonna end- if you can prove the world is gonna end, then seriously, do it.

Nihilistic/depressing for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told).

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). If you're running a K, make sure it's topical (like, seriously, I'm a big stickler with this) and assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there- I'll go out of the way to say that traditional K's are an easier way to win. If you're using a K, I need to understand the link and the terms you use! It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters are quivering at me saying that- I know, I'm scary- fear me).

I'm not the biggest big fan of how LARP-y LD has become in the past few years. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but strongly believe moral/ framework arguments should always come first in LD. If you're going to run a LARP-y case, have at, but show me why we shouldn't look to a moral system (or whatever way you want to conceptualize it as) to achieve the end result of the round.

Role of the Ballot arguments usually make me cringe. "Education" based arguments also make my brain explode- running these with me unless heavily contextualized will usually go nowhere.

'Debate Space' arguments are bad.

Disclosure (or even time skew, for that matter) theory is usually not good to run with me, unless you really, really feel like the case is abusive and whacky.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

Truth > Tech, but Tech isn't a bad thing. If there's no base for you to ground your argument in truth, you can't access technical arguments. Extend tech off of truth.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

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

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, 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. Send speech docs 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 be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your 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 are)

1. Summary extension

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

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

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

2. Offense defense

Absent any other 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 with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

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

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

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

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

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. 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 will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive 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 get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

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 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 one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

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

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

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

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

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

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 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 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 - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, 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. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

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 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. 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, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

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

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

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

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

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

I'll go speech by speech.

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

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

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

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, 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: 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.

To start off, I was a PF debater for 3 years and I am currently a coach for Millard West.

I debated on both the Nebraska Circuit and National Circuit so, for the second rebuttal I don't really mind what you do as long as you effectively sign-post. I'm not great with speed, but I can understand speed that is faster than a regular conversation. 

I fully support the use of framework in a round. It makes it very easy for both sides and the judge to be on the same page. The most important thing is that you continue to pull that framework through the round not only by reminding me of it, but by tying everything that you do back to that framework. If your opponent sets forth a framework, even something like "I always win because I'm me so you must vote for my team," and you don't respond to it, I will use it to decide who wins the round.

As far as evidence, I will ask for any card that either team continually questions or tells me to pull. It's best to tell me the author's name of the card and/or the claim that they are making with the card in any speech. I am more than willing to ask for evidence that wasn't questioned in the round but, unless the evidence is very different than the claim made, I won't necessarily drop the argument.

I am totally fine with "sas" but I don't like people being overly aggressive. I understand that some aggression is natural, but pointing that aggression directly at your opponents (accusing them of "whining," yelling over them in crossfire, etc.) will lose you speaker points.

Speaker Points:

A 28 is where you start and then either go up or down. A 30 means you were able to speak well and that you kept my attention while speaking. A 26 means something went wrong and I'll definitely tell you about it in my RFD.

Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round. The feedback is entirely for you so nothing that is said after the 2nd FF will sway my decision at all. The only thing that can sway my decision after a round is if evidence has been misused.

I am a former public forum debater. When you make arguments, make sure you understand what they mean. Impacts are always benifical throughout the entire debate. But extend the argument not the card. If you believe you have won a point, you should be able to summarize why you have into a brief statement as opposed to not mentioning it. By the end of the final focus I should have a clear presentation of why your team won the round. If you use evidence in the round, please have that evidence ready to be shown in case it is called for by the opposing team or me.i will give a verbal RFD about what need to be worked on or give suggestions for possible help.

Please be respectful, speak well, and remember this activity is one for education and fun

I'm not a big fan of speed as I believe debate should be a listening activity. I'm not very familiar with theory but if you break it down for me as a regular argument that would be great. K's should be explained thoroughly. I have Four years of experience judging Lincoln Douglas but it has been in the JV , PF division. Be respectful with your opponent when you raise your point.The bottom line is if I don't understand it, I'm not voting off it. Your job as the debater is to explain the arguments you make.

Pronouns: they/them

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, behaviorally "icky." if you make snarky remarks that feel like personal or direct attacks to your fellow competitors, you immediately lose speaker points — sexism, racism, and other harmful actions&behaviors is an automatic thumbs down, no ballot from me. Do not deliberately misgender your opponents, I will report you to the tournament for harassment.

Background: Teaching, judging, head coachin' XP.Angles that touch on collective social benefit and education speak to me as a judge - I believe there is a way any team can win the majority of ballots if they do their homework, ask questions, adapt. Why not "all" ballots and just a majority? --> those inhospitable judges who stand on problematic foundations - but that's a conversation for the ombudsman and equity panel; I strongly believe judges & all adult shareholders need to be student-centered, constructive, and responsible for maintaining healthy competition and continuous learning in this activity. If you are a coach or judge focused on *just* 'winning' or being 'right' and right is only your values, then ew. if you are a judge, coach, or student who makes comments on competitors' appearance or things they cannot control, I will call you out in round -- student or adult, I don't care, I will call your behavior out. Do not be a jerk to children or peers. I will do the same if your comments in their meaning or delivery reflect historically oppressive comments said to marginalized debaters.

I flow -- we will rarely make eye contact in round so if I am no longer flowing, it means things have gone clear as mud. I’m not a Policy person in PF, they are separate for a reason. I am not a lay judge. But I won’t do the leaps of logic for you in round and I want what is argued and debated in round to matter than the judge’s own opinion. I expect to see adaptation in round *especially on mixed panels* as it shows a level of skill in competitors who can persuade to their judges' paradigms. Your lack of adaptability to a panel can hurt your speaker points, even if you had my flow - especially if you hit my red flags (above). My hope is that the experience is fun and rewarding for you, even if you don't win your round. :) Debate is an educational sport!

What I look for in a round:

Coherency, strong links, and evidence -- WHY are your impacts more urgent, critical, all around more relatable?? >>> speed for me, always. I believe public forum means *public* access — if you cannot explain or adapt to a lay judge, then do you understand what you’re debating yourself? I abhor grandstanding that sidelines partners or strokes egos; same for any rounds that chase agreeing on a definitions that go no where. Buzz words and speed that don't provide good solid ethos, pathos, logos won't mean much. I rarely call for evidence, so if you don’t then I will take it as agreeing to the other team’s use. I also believe that if there are fundamentally untrue things ("racism good") I will not accept them in round (truth over tech). Do not play devil’s advocate on people’s real lived experiences and trauma.

Teams should, explicitly, at the beginning determine how the round should be weighed!! Otherwise I will go with cost benefit

Don't steam roll your opponents during cross, especially if you ask them a question - interjecting so they cannot even respond to your question is no go for me. In your summary and final focus, I want to know why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, etc.

For congress: I want to hear refutation --> I want to see warrants (you are all students!) --> I want to see clash and I want advancement of the debate! I cannot stand questioning when the speaker is rude or dismissive of questions, even if they are simple or irrelevant questions. Congress is unique in its demand of decorum and if you cannot handle being a decent person in a role play of congress, then you need to reevaluate if you understand how congress in this activity functions.

reading this entire paradigm should give you a straight forward understanding of how to win my ballots, infer my values, and what to avoid in round.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK TO SHAKE MY HAND, ever. Lol. We learned things from the pandemic y’all. Fist bump or wave at me — it’s chill.

Went to Fairmont Prep, did circuit PF for 4 years

*****DO NOT ASK FOR TIME BEFORE ROUND TO PRE-FLOW!*****

Public Forum Paradigm

1. Tech over Truth

I will buy any argument. If you have the cards for it I will evaluate it, and even if I do not believe it I will vote on it if you win it. 

2. Intervention

My goal is to never intervene in the round. This includes on evidence. If your opponent's evidence is false or misconstrued, and you do not tell me I will count the evidence in the round- even if I call for the evidence and can clearly see it is misconstrued.

3. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you must extend it in the summary. 

4. Framing

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to util. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments, not a fan of them, but you can read them. You will, however, have to have substantial warranting on why I should use your non-util framing.

5. Narrow the final focus

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues.  If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments.  That is not good for you because I like crazy stuff.

6. Theory

I will vote on theory arguments if they are done well meaning you must have an actual impact of the abuse. Simply is saying this harms education/fairness is not sufficient, you must explain how it harms education/fairness and why education/fairness matters. I default to competing-interpretations (I am willing to use reasonability if you explain why), and I default to condo good (unless you prove otherwise). You also need to explain why theory comes first.

7. Arguments in 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. However, you can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech. 

8. Evidence availability

If you read any evidence, have the card available to hand over. Constructives should have their cards ready to hand over, in order, (probably even in the same document) because you know someone is going to ask for them. And having a bunch of PDF’s that you have to Command-F is not having your cards available. That is just lazy debating, and I will doc speaks if you just have PDFs and do not card your evidence. I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE that teams provide evidence when requested on one laptop on one document, in any other format you are wasting their prep. If you provide all the cards from your speech to your opponent right after or before your speech without being asked I will boost your speaks by 1.5 points.

9. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities. If you get up and make an argument along the lines of "my opponent doesn't have date of access in their cards, you should drop them." I will drop something, not the team, more likely your speaks. 

10. Indicts are not argument

I hate indict debates that overpower actually debating real argument. Indicting a card is just making the argument less believable, not actually beating it. Their indicted evidence outweighs your non-existence evidence or logic. 

11. Observers

If someone wants to watch they can watch, and they can flow. You are probably thinking "Nick, that is so unfair they are going to give away my flow to other teams." News flash. The team you are debating has your flow, and they are going to give it away. Furthermore, if your case is so weak that someone having your flow will decimate your chances of winning, you probably were going to lose anyways. Just remember this is Public Forum- you can not deny the public from the forum.

If you have any further question feel free to ask. 

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.  

Second Year out; debated PF for four years; pretty classic flow PF judge

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Voting

I vote on extensions between summary and final focus. I like to see voting issues in both Summary and Final Focus but if you really want to do a line by line in Summary, that's fine too. Just make sure you sign post for me.

Please refrain from extending through ink or making arguments that jump from rebuttal to final focus.

It's easiest to win my ballot if you have a strong narrative/advocacy throughout your case and speeches. I like framework, observations, and overviews because they're really good for streamlining the debate.

I like if an argument collapses well, so in the later speeches like summary and final focus, I would like to see more than just impacts extended.

Speeches:

If you're the second speaking team, I like it if you go back to your case during rebuttal, but it's not a huge deal if you don't.

Argumentation

I'll listen to whatever arguments you want me to, but mostly I'll listen to how you weigh it.

Cross X:

I generally listen and don't flow, so if an important concession comes up, make sure to mention it in a speech.

Evidence Ethics

Sometimes at the end of a round I may need to call for cards. This might be because a team asks me to do it or because it seems like the actual wording of the card might not align with how it was explained. If I notice a degree of exaggeration that significantly influences the quality of the card, I'll probably just drop the card from the round. If I read the card and evidence has clearly been falsified or significantly misconstrued, I will either drop the team that used the objectionable evidence, file a report with tab, or both. Overall, just be honest and we'll be a-okay.

Background Experience

Competed in PFD for 4 years @ Nova High School. 2012-2016

Now coach @ Ransom Everglades

How I Evaluate The Round

As the great Kyle Chong once said, "I first evaluate the framework debate, then I vote based on who generates the most offense off of the winning framework."

How I Evaluate Arguments

Use your warrants, please. I can't evaluate an argument that I cannot understand, and I cannot understand arguments that are not fully explained. Note, empirics are worthless without logical backing. I respect great logic far more than I do what some random study found. Here's why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

This is a human activity. Craft your narrative! Make pretty speeches.

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.

WS

I have been a coach for over 20 years, but like most people (especially on the East Coast) I am relatively new to this event.

I will do my best follow the NDSA norms and judge with 40% content, 40% style, and 20% strategy. I believe that the debaters should provide their own warrants based on statistics and examples. Do not spit evidence. I value debaters that can think on their feet and clearly explain their arguments.

Not a fan of a team standing constantly for POIs, but a couple of well thought out and timed POIs are appreciated. Also unless otherwise noted or argued in the framework, I will assume the motion is global.

PF

Good with speed up to a point, if you go blazing and I miss it, I can't weigh it.

I need each team to tell me why they think they won the round, so I don't have to figure it out on my own.

I have no strict rules about what has to be said in summary, but I expect consistent argumentation. Something from the first four speeches should not just pop up in the final focus as a voter.

It is important that your evidence says what you say it says. If the debaters make a card(s) important to the round, I may call for evidence.

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.

Look at my good friend Will's paradigm. It is pretty much the same as mine and he managed to express it quite eloquently. 
Here is a link to it. 

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=bohrer

--

Scarsdale Class of 2015

University of Chicago Class of 2019

Debate good.

be nice.

be funny if you're good at that typa thing.

dont waste cross fire, I allow extensions from cross into speeches (this mainly pertains to concessions, not to speeches you give in cross fire, unless the speech is prompted by a question from your opponent).

give examples for your arguments.

give examples for your arguments.

dear god please give examples for your arguments.

lastly, give examples for your arguments.

+ 1 speaks for sicc strats, good analysis, and good examples.

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

I was an International Extemporaenous speaker in high school, and I've been studying Computer Science since 2013. Since I was in Extemp, I'm able to flow (and will). I'm able to look past my own beliefs to upvote the better argument. I also care more about the depth of an argument much more than the breadth of one (Just because you have a bunch of evidence does not guarantee a win). Warrant and impact (but especially good impact) extensions will win rounds for me. That said, since I come from the speech side of things, a well presented argument will win when I believe the arguments to be equal.   

I'm not a fan of long debates about whose card is better, so if there is some discrepancy, please resolve it quickly. On the subject of evidence, relevance is key. Poorly related evidence will only hurt your case.   

I'm excited to be back at the Glenbrooks judging Speech and Debate again. Seeing the hard work and dedication that these students continue to put in is both nostalgic and inspiring. 

My name is Bill Thompson and I am currently the Director of Speech and Debate at NSU University School in Fort Lauderdale Florida. In college I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA/NFL. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach or judge policy or LD with great frequency any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.

Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time votin aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot

- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like

- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.

- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.

- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow dow for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.

- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.

- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow dow for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

First, a little about me. I have been judging public forum debate for about 10 years (does that seem possible). I am pretty straightforward in terms of what I look for in judging a pf round. Do you clearly state what your contentions are? Are the contentions directly related to the question that is being debated (this sounds elemental but I can remember a number of times that teams tried to bring up arguments with no direct link to the resolution.) I am judging public forum (not policy) so you don't have to try and impress me with how fast you can talk. As a matter of fact, excessive speed will work against you on my ballot.

Do you provide good blocks to your opponent's contentions or did you ignore or drop them? Do you make good use of the time you have available or do you leave time "sitting on the table." I do not do the elaborate flows that some judges do. My theory is that the more time you spend writing the less time you spend listening.

All contentions must be backed by evidence. You should always be able to produce your evidence for your opponent or me if it is requested in a reasonable amount of time. Inability to locate evidence will lower your chance of winning the round. Falsifying or misstating evidence will lose you the round.

I listen VERY closely to cross fire rounds. This is really the only unscripted part of the debate and I have seen many a close debate that was won - or lost - due to crossfire.

Finally, be professional in how you handle your round and treat your opponent. Facial expressions while your opponent is debating, rolling of the eyes, arrogance, being condescending etc. do not sit well with me.

Post-Emory thoughts:

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

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

For WKU -

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

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

Debate is good as a whole

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

Who am I?

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

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

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

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

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

Prior to the round

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

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

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

Non-negotiables

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

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

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

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

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

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

Negotiables

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

Tech vs truth

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

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

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

Theory

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

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

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

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

IVIs

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

Bellaire High School '16

Northwestern University '20

TL/DR: Research and informed comparison/analysis win debates. Attend to details and clash with your opponent.

In General:

I will try to read as little evidence after the round as possible and default to explanations/instructions given by debaters on how to weigh arguments.

I will attempt to be vigilant about rejecting new arguments made in Final Focus or arguments made in Final Focus that were not extended in summary

The final focus and summary should focus on warrant analysis and argument resolution (why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, etc.)

Narrow debates are best - the final focus should usually contain 1-3 arguments against the opponents' case and one clear impact story from case.

Specific Things/Biases:

I am probably more willing to assign zero risk to an impact than most judges, especially if the evidence and analysis supporting such a claim is good. In most cases, however, there is usually at least some risk of both team's impacts (which is why weighing/framework analysis is important.)

In absence of any framework or other meta-level analysis, I default to utilitarian impact calculus.

For theory - For issues other than conditionality, I default to reject the argument, not the team (but can easily be persuaded otherwise.) I default to neither the pro nor con can fiat specific subsets of the resolution (in these instances, you should have evidence saying your interpretation of the resolution is how it would most likely be adopted.) I can be persuaded otherwise.

Arguments/points brought up in crossfire need to be made in the speeches for me to evaluate them.

 If you have any questions, feel free to email sunealvemuri2020@u.northwestern.edu

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. 

FOR Varsity PF:

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '12-'16. I consider my experience to be pretty national circuit friendly. I need pens and paper. I would really prefer you not give me spiral notebook paper.

You should shake your opponents hand but not mine.

Always let the coin hit the ground.

Do not try and delay the round to write a preflow.

SPEECHES: First speaking teams should never go over their own case in rebuttal. I have no place to flow it and it will ruin your speaks. Second speaking teams should cover both sides of the flow. If they don't its up to the first speaking teams to extend and point out dropped arguments. Don't feel nervous about kicking the case and going off turns, I'm a fan of this strategy when used correctly. Summary shouldn't be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order.

I give speaks based on strategy and arguments rather than the velvetyness of your voice. So in that way i will only give a low point win if you were extremely rude but destroyed on the flow. this hasn't happened yet and I don't want it to.

CROSSFIRE: I don't flow crossfire but it is really important and unless its completely ridiculous i'm going to hold you to what both you and your partner say in crossfire. If your opponent asks about a piece of evidence in CF "Idk you tell me" is almost always a bad answer. Questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.

Do the correct standing/sitting procedure for crossfire please.

FLOWING: I'm a slow writer but I also like to write down card names. This makes it difficult for me to flow card dumps as well as the info they contain. I go by the flow but I would not call myself a "flow" judge. The solution to speech times should be better word economy not faster speaking. I like advanced nuanced arguments but I just like them to be delivered in a calm manner. "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?"

FRAMEWORK/ARGUMENTS: I'm open to tech but it needs to be explained why its necessary for the round as much as it needs to be on my flow. I'm not a fan of Kritiks especially ones that rely on personal narratives. I'm open to ones that have a broader look to why we should reject the resolution or whatever. I'm far more open to theory but would prefer ad-lib rather than a shell. Extremely willing to vote on morality or deontological arguments and don't really buy "countries cant have moral obligations" without a lot of explanation.

I HATE plans. I would rather you go 3 off than give me a specific implementation of the resolution. If you are showing an alternative you MUST show why it is the most likely one.

Bad: "Instead of affirming we should do this"

Good: "If you negate this will happen"

I want you to have a broad look at the resolution and really look on balance rather than giving one example that technically makes the resolution true.

I also hate anything that links into nuke war unless its relevant to the resolution

EVIDENCE: Evidence is extremely important. You need to know your evidence and interact with it. I like it when rounds get into the weeds on the nuances between studies. Don't tell me something is a study when its an article in Forbes.

Bad evidence often has the best wording for debates. If you don't compare and contrast your opponents evidence with your own i'll have to buy the strong language some nut job in the Washington examiner writes rather than the nuanced and cautious analysis from the Brookings Institute.

DO NOT CITE THE CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON GLOBALIZATION (GLOBAL RESEARCH) ITS A CONSPIRACY THEORY SITE.

I may call for any card that sparks my interest even if it doesnt play a roll in the round. Feel free to call for opponents cards or even cases. If your opponents are dishonest about evidence make it a voter or explain to my why that undermines their entire case's credibility. Ill buy it and will give them a much harder time on the flow if you're correct about the violation. I will probably not intervene but don't run sketchy evidence in front of me.

Really, really not a fan of "Miller 16: Blah blah blah" and want evidence to be given with author institution and date. I will weigh "John Mueller in Foreign Affairs 2018" over Mueller 18 any day.

FOR LD/CX:

I'm not trying to impose my old event onto yours. I'm here for the ride and am open to any argument you want to run. That being said I have almost no experience with the event so you will need to explain things clearly if you want me to listen to them.

I do not understand spreading what so ever. You can run what you want just be clear and weigh. If it seems like you're just reading off of paper or don't understand your own arguments I will drop you or something.

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

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

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. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

PF being what it is, I'd strongly prefer it if you treated me in rounds as a generally informed person off the street whom you're trying to persuade. Here is an excellent paradigm that you can treat as my own.

Two small additions: 1) I prefer that you summarize in summaries; group arguments, recap the debate, start weighing, focus on and resolve your clash, etc., rather than just running straight down the flow after rebuttal. 2) Theory or metadebate isn't appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the point of PF. I'd strongly prefer the debate to be about the substance of the topic.

I occasionally judge LD, in which case the anti-theory preference is softened but the rest should still apply.

I will take down flows but please consider a more “lay” approach to argumentation (I will not be impressed by jargon, figures, or theory if it is not well explained).

Speed is fine, but I feel like you are spreading just to gain an advantage by cramming in more arguments (as opposed to more thorough and concise responses) I will probably stop listening.

If there is a dispute over evidence, I will call for the card in context myself. If I find you are intentionally misusing or misrepresenting evidence to support a claim within a contention, I will drop the entire contention and probably spend an annoying amount of time lecturing you about ethics and evidence after the round.

I prefer arguments made in Final Focus to have been made in summary but if there is genuinely compelling reason to bring in new evidence I *will* consider it.

Be nice. have fun. Don’t take yourself too seriously.

Feel free to ask me any additional questions before round starts.