Tabroom.com

43rd University of Pennsylvania Tournament

2018 — Philadelphia, PA/US

Varsity Public Forum Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sai Akkapeddi Bridgewater None

Gavin Alcott Hire

Jeremy Andreades Delbarton School

Last changed on Sat January 25, 2020 at 7:15 AM EDT

I am a law student at Emory. I coached PF at Delbarton, CBI, and ISD. I competed in PF Bronx Science.

1. Please don't give line by line final two speeches.

2. Limit what you're going for in your final two speeches (prioritize good substantive warrants rather than more blippy responses). Group responses when you can in summary, and explicitly weigh in both speeches but especially in final focus.

3. If you would like me to vote on certain offense bring it up in both summary and final focus.

4. Use the summary to respond to responses made in the rebuttal and give me voters (alternatively you can devote time in the second rebuttal to front-lining). I am uncomfortable voting for an argument that hasn't developed at all since your case (unless of course you show me it's been dropped and bring it up in summary and final focus).

5. Please have your evidence available promptly. I will get fed up and start running prep time or docking speaker points if you can't find it quickly enough. In extreme cases, or if I feel like you are intentionally being unethical, I will drop you.

6. That being said, don't call for every card. Only ask to see evidence if you are legitimately concerned about understanding the content or context.

7. If you aren't using prep time (as in, they are searching for a card to show you), then don't prep.

8. When in doubt I will vote for the most consistently brought up, and convincingly warranted arguments.

9. Only give me an off time roadmap if you're doing something atypical.

10. You should have your preflows ready on both sides before you enter the room.

11. If you card dump, there is no way for me or your opponents to fairly ascertain credibility. I will not flow it as evidence.

12. I give speaker points based on persuasiveness and good rhetoric not technicalities. If you win every argument but sound like a robot, or just read off your computer, you will get low speaker points.

Samuel Arnesen Millburn High School

Ernesto Aviles Windermere None

Stan Banks West Orange High School

Rachel Baron Riverdale Country School

Last changed on Wed October 10, 2018 at 9:25 AM EDT

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

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

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

Summaries:

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

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

Weighing:

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

Saxon Bryant Hire

Oscar Carillo Freehold Townshipi

Last changed on Sat January 23, 2021 at 4:57 AM EDT

2017-2018: WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH;

2020: I am a junior undergrad International Relations & Diplomacy and Modern Language double major with an Economics minor at Seton Hall University. As a competitor, I debated four years of Public Forum Debate and Congress and one year of Policy Debate and LD on the New Jersey and National circuit for Freehold Township High School and qualed to the TOC in PuFo my senior year. I also debated two years of Middle School Parli where I placed 3rd in NJ.

After graduating I privately coached 1 year of PuFo at Freehold Township, where my teams achieved a 100% break-rate in the National Circuit. Said teams all cleared at the 2018 TOCs as well.

I currently debate on the college APDA circuit (1 year), and I have experience participating and Judging highly-technical debate rounds, so feel free to run whatever arguments you like. Please note that I have been out of the HS debate scene for almost two years so I still need to get used to the new rules changes and get adjusted to the greater Progressive nature of PuFo. Before getting into my paradigm, if you have any questions, feel free to email me at oandre1028@gmail.com before the round or just ask me before we start. Regardless, a few general things:

1) Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as it's understandable (enunciation is key) and preferably not spreading, I spoke generally fast for a debater and wouldn't even consider it remotely close to spreading. However, if you're going to spread just know there is a tradeoff between what you are spreading and what is written on my flow. If you are going too fast, I will clear you however if I see myself having to clear you more than once then I expect you to SLOW down or stop spreading altogether, if you don't I will just put my pen down until I am able to understand you.

2) Accessibility: I will accept speech docs if you believe it will help me follow you in round, however in PuFo even if it is on the doc but I wasn't able to understand it or hear it when you read it the first time it won't be on my flow. I will use the speech doc to help me analyze your arguments and evidence. This just goes back to my personal belief that debate should be accessible to all, especially coming from a small and unfunded program. So adding in another level of intricacy such as spreading, card dumping, theory, etc. might not make the round accessible to your opponents. It also makes it so the round becomes a game of who has more cards or blippy arguments rather than proferring your own/author's analyses and explaining to me why you win the argument/round. As a second speaker, I rarely read straight off a speech doc/pc and usually only brought up my flows for my speech. PuFo was created as the lay person's debate, and while Judging although I will looking at my flow to adjudicate I always try to keep the integrity of PuFo alive. Keep in mind winning in debate is fun, trophies are great, and we all strive for the top, however participating in a highly contested and educational round makes the experience better for the debaters, audience, and Judge.

3) Weighing: Please make it easy for me to know what to evaluate. Weigh as much as you want; I recommend doing it as early as rebuttal if you need to in order to make my decision clear. If you don't weigh, then I will do it myself based on whatever arguments I thought clashed with each other during the round. I hate intervening in rounds but will do so if both teams fail to weigh sufficiently. You will not like interventionist Oscar, my brain is wacky and is best when forced to be Tabula Rasa or as much as a human can be while judging. If you force me to implement my own thoughts, opinions, or ideas and make the experience unenjoyable to me then I will most likely vote Neg on neutrality or whichever team I liked more if neither team was clear. That is because tab usually doesn't allow me to drop both teams xD. Simply said, the earlier and more effectively you weigh, the better chance my decision will be based off the arguments and mechanisms that both teams presented in the round.

3) Summary/FF: If you're going for something it 100% has to be in summary and FF. If something is terminal defense just say that it is in your first rebuttal and you don't really need to extend it in summary, but everything else in summary should be in FF if you want me to evaluate it. If you are the first speaking team, the only defense you really have to extend is on the arguments they frontline in second rebuttal. Obviously, you need to extend turns and all, so this means you should take advantage of this time by spending the entire time in first summary front lining, extending, and weighing your case. If you extend defense that the other team hasn't addressed yet, you are literally wasting time and I will simply stare at you. I also believe that 2nd summary should extend critical pieces of defense, since they know what the first summary has gone for. **However, I have yet to decide if I will have heightened expectations for either speaking team's coverage and voters as now summaries will be one minute longer. What I will say is that strategies will most likely change, however if you are going to end up going for your entire case in Summary on both speaking positions it probably won't be clear and will lack proper weighing and clash as the FF is still only 2 minutes long.**

4) Second Speaking Team: Your rebuttal should have some type of frontlining done in it. If you do not frontline, you are making your partner's job much harder. Some debaters and judges believe this places an unfair burden on the first speaking team since they do not know what you're going for until second summary which I might tend to agree, however the concept of flipping position or side makes it so you still have some sort of advantage against your adversaries be it speaking position or debating on the side you are more comfortable with. What I will say is if you don't do any frontlining in second rebuttal, on the flow it will be more difficult to win my ballot as my standard is to cover their offense which includes Turns on your case, and if you do, your speaks and chances of winning will increase. **How the second speaking "advantage" changes with an added minute to the summary time, I don't know. I have yet to judge a round with the new format so we will see what the tradeoff ends up being and if I will extend less D based on speaking position.**

5) Evidence: My favorite thing to see in a round besides you knowing how to warrant your arguments well is a team that really understands methodology. When I debated, I know teams would often get bogged down in reading absurd evidence with enormous impacts to win them the round. However, almost all of these studies are flawed in some way. Therefore if you can call evidence and understand the issues with the evidence by reading the study's methodology and then contextualize this in a speech to me, it will not only kill the impact of your opponent's argument, but I will probably up your speaks if you do a good job of explaining why the methodology of the study does not actually prove that X causes Y or whatever the argument may be. Also, if your opponent’s evidence is sketchy, let me know and I’ll read it, but I typically will call for evidence if it may decide the round or you tell me to call it.

6) Theory: If you want to run these types of arguments, make sure there is some type of abuse that is going on in the round. Don't just run theory because you think your opponents won't know how to respond to it, goes back to my thoughts on accessibility. Nevertheless and ironically, that's an exact reason why theory should be run on you. If you were to run things like paraphrase or dates theory, it has to be run pretty well for me to consider it heavily and vote off of it. Also don't troll with it either if both teams aren't on the same boat. A good example of not being on the same boat would be the Millburn CZ vs Nueva CS round at Berkley semis. On the other hand a good example of the teams being on the same boat would be the Robert Chen round at SCU 2 look it up on /r/debate xD. With that in mind if both teams want to run theory and make the round more progressive I'm fine with that however keep in mind, although I have experiences debating and judging same I might get the decision wrong more often in comparison to a vanilla PuFo round, that is because theory was rarely run in my circuit when I was debating.

7) Kritiks: If you run a K, I will be able to follow, but I most likely will not vote off it. Pre-Fiat K's on opponents' behavior or case sexism, racism, etc would most likely be moot as there should be content-warnings prior to case reading and if not and I felt a debater might be upset/targetted then I would interven. There is a time and place for everything and K's in PuFo ain't it. I also subscribe to the idea that many times you are running the K in PuFo because you want to get a competitive advantage i.e. deter opponents' accessibility in the round. If that is the case I won't auto drop you but you will get very low speaks. However, if you do run a K in PuFo and it happens to be ran so exceptionally well that the caliber is synonymous to the level performed at late elims at Nats in CX or LD debate I will probably buy it. However, this is unlikely to happen as if that was the case you probably would be competing in LD or CX rather than PuFo, and if that isn't the case then I apologize and give kudos to you.

Things I like:

· Warranted arguments: “Everything happens for a reason” is not just a cliched quote when it comes to debate! If you are not warranting arguments thoroughly, I will not vote on it. I will not vote on blippy arguments where you just assert things. Just because some dude found that conflict decreases by 2000% under X condition literally means nothing to me. If you can’t explain the methodology or the warranting of the study, a simple response of “There is no warranting here” will take out the impact.

· Cool arguments: Stock arguments are fun and all and actually can be the most effective arguments if run correctly and warranted, but if you have a cool argument you want to break out, feel free. I’d love to hear some cool stuff. I’ll typically vote tech over truth.

· Signposting: If you don’t signpost, I will be lost and it probably will mean if you say some good stuff it won’t be on my flow. Signposting makes my life and yours much easier.

· Overviews & Roadmaps: Roadmaps help me know where you're going on the flow. Overviews can be very effective if done correctly. I'm ok with second position overviews as long as you are not changing your entire advocacy and are not too abusive. With that being said go for them, however understand the trade-off of using time for your overview as a well-established overview is not a one-liner and will not be only a few seconds long. This all goes to round strategy and if you and your partner's speeches all go back to this overview and weigh it enough+correctly I will vote off it and use it as the mechanism while adjudicating. Nobody likes a framework debate, but a good overview can win the round for you while a bad one can be turned on you and cause a clear ballot to the other side. From personal experience, I utilized overviews almost every round and it became part of my typical speech as it helped me clearly frame the round or point out misconceptions/abuse/knifing in the first half of the debate which made it more likely for the judge to buy my advocacy and helped my first speaker. With that in mind, I can smell abusive ones especially when it comes to resolution framing from a mile away because sometimes I was that guy, and I did it to make the round less accessible for my adversaries. So please don't be THAT person.

How to get good speaks:

· Weighing: pretty self-explanatory. I like math a lot so if you do some impact calculus for me I’ll be happy. Tell me why stuff matters.

· Jokes: Debate is a stressful activity. You guys could probably use a laugh as could I. Be funny and I’ll up your speaks if I laugh

· If you guys quote the GOAT of soccer or give me a crazy analogy during the round, I’ll probably bump up your speaks.

Overall, let's have a good round, and good luck y'all!

Grace Chao Hire None

Francie Cho Summit HS

Nate Conoly Vestavia Hills High School

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 3:18 PM CDT

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Christopher Conrad The Hill School

Malcolm Davis Strath Haven

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 8:57 PM EDT

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

Gabe Delsol Walt Whitman

Taylor Diken Union Catholic

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 5:36 AM EDT

I judge LD and PF at all levels. I debated all throughout high school: in LD my freshman year and in PF for the subsequent three (NCFL, NJFL, NFL). I have been judging debate for over 10 years.

For email chains, my email is taylordiken@gmail.com.

Style

Theoretical arguments are welcome if you can reason them through. In Public Forum, though, you also need evidence to back up your claims.
I dislike spreading, and if you spread for every speech WITHOUT signposting, you will likely see that taken off in speaker points. If you need to speed up to get all of your points in, that's fine once or twice, but policy-level speed is not my preference.
Most importantly: please be civil during your rounds. Everyone at a meet/tournament is an adult and should be treated like one. If you talk down to your opponents, you will absolutely have speaker points taken off.
Where it is allowed, I do give low point wins. The easiest way to make sure you get the speaker points you're looking for is to speak clearly and politely throughout the round.

Technicalities

Time yourself, time your partner, and time your opponents. Keep each other honest. As the judge, I will keep the official time.
No new evidence can be presented after the second crossfire - I will not flow it and you'll waste your time. No new arguments should be presented after grand cross.
Summary is a summary and final focus is a final focus. Do not use summary as a rebuttal or FF as a summary.
When required, I disclose only the result of the round. I do not give oral critique. I generally do not answer questions after the round like "What did you think of x" as it gives the debater(s) an unfair advantage. I write any comments on the ballot instead so the information goes to your coach as well.

Judging

I vote off the flow. I try to take down every argument made and follow it throughout the round. That means I'll know if you mistakenly extend a point or even an entire contention, and you will definitely lose that point/contention if you pretend you've won when you haven't. That means the FF of "and my opponent dropped X and Y and Z" doesn't fly when I have the flow of the opponent actually addressing X, Y, and Z right in front of me.
If you have eleven subpoints to a contention for the sole purpose of confusing your opponent, I'm likely not going to extend them if the opponent runs out of time at point three.

William Dungan Hire

Jonathan Estey Science Leadership Academy

Last changed on Sat February 11, 2017 at 8:24 AM EDT

I have experience judging Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy/Cross-Ex, and Parliamentary/Impromptu Debate. My competitive background was in Parliamentary and the majority of my coaching background has been in Pulbic Forum and Parliamentary.

In general:

I expect debaters to explain and support their arguments as clearly and concisely as possible, without needing to resort to spreading. Clear, easy-to-follow speech at a reasonable pace is a must. I value simple, clear, succinct wording over jargon and grandiloquence. I value a few quality arguments/pieces of evidence more than an overwhelming quantity of cards and subpoints. I expect debaters to be civil with each other while also listening carefully and responding to the opposing arguments to maximize clash. I decide rounds based on weighing the impacts through whatever mechanism the debaters give me. I will weigh a clear, soundly-based impact far heavier than one that is contrived, confusing, and/or stretched well beyond what the evidence will support.

Above all, remember: this is what we all chose to spend our weekend doing! Speak well, be kind, and have fun!

Specific to Public Forum: I believe that the distinctiveness of Public Forum lies, at its heart, in accessibility. Your speeches should be comprehensible to a reasonably educated person, not just a debate coach. You should communicate your arguments clearly, without resorting to spreading, endless quotations, or obscure debate jargon. Crossfire is a critical part of this distinctiveness – it is not cross-ex, and I expect to hear concise, specific questions alternating back and forth with concise, specific answers. Be as assertive, even as aggressive, as you like, but do it politely and make sure I can hear both debaters. When 4 strong debaters cooperate to create a CF environment that is high in both clash and civility, that is one of the most beautiful experiences in all of debate.

Specific to Lincoln-Douglas Debate: I expect you to deliberately engage with the Value/Criterion framework; it is my guidance for weighing the debate and it should not be an afterthought. I also have no patience with spreading in LD. There is absolutely no need to read 10 cards in a value debate constructive.

Specific to Policy Debate: I expect policy debaters to debate. I know that you are intelligent, articulate, thoughtful people and I want to see you debating that way, not competing to deliver non sequitors and logical fallacies at incomprehensibly high speeds. The team that can communicate to me most effectively will win my ballot.

spreading & jargon: I will drop from the flow any argument or evidence read too fast for a reasonably educated person to follow. Likewise, I expect you to be able to explain your arguments in plain English.
Kritiks: I happily accept K's if and only if they are connected to the resolution and pass the common sense test. I don't accept cut-and-paste K's that are merely an attempt to avoid researching the resolution. (That's most of them.) If you were giggling while writing your K, expect it to drop. I'm fine with kritikal affs that make sense – but I have yet to encounter one that does.
Counterplans: PIC's are Aff ground and I don't accept them. PEC's are welcome. Conditional counterplans just tell me that even you think your counterplan is bogus; if you're running a counterplan, you should commit to it.
Impacts: They should be reasonable interpretations of evidence. Extinction arguments gain you nothing with me, if they depend on slippery-slope arguments or tortured links. I won't even flow them.
Topicality: Never run T. Ever. For me to accept your T argument, the other team needs to be talking about fairies and unicorns or something. If it's about the US engaging with China in any way, it's topical. Just debate the round.

Tl;dr: I vote on quality of arguments over quantity. If you are spreading to include 50 cards and tons of dubious extinction arguments plus T and 2 specious Ks and a CP that you're just going to drop in your 2nd constructive... don't bother. I don't care whether your opponents even respond to specious arguments or not; if I think you're just trying to overwhelm the other team with speed and word salad, I'm dropping the filler straight off the flow.

Jonathan Freedman The Bronx High School Of Science

Emily Fu Hire

Last changed on Wed January 30, 2019 at 11:56 AM PDT

I debated LD (and occasionally PF) for 4 years at Citrus Valley High School in California. I'm currently a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania.

I will vote off of any argument so long as it is well-warranted and links back to a framework. For extensions, I don't need a full regurgitation of the argument for extensions, but say something more than "Extend ______". You do not have to extend defense in your summary speech. I will flow any argument you make but I won't do your work for you and add extensions that don't exist.

Avoid clash that goes nowhere. If aff has a card that says one thing and neg a card that says the opposite, make sure to explain why your evidence should be preferred rather than just stating that you have it. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash.

Please stay organized in your speeches and have clear signposts for arguments. I can't flow your arguments if I am looking for where to flow it. In the final focus, take the time to crystallize your arguments and flesh out your impacts. Do the weighing of the round and make it clear why you are winning.

Your weighing mechanism should be justified, but don’t spend too much time on it if it is common (util, deon, etc.). Also, avoid pointless framework debates if your frameworks are essentially the same (util vs. cba). I believe framework should divide ground evenly so I usually don't go for abusive frameworks.

I believe that though PF is a team event, each partner should be able to function individually, no yelling points at your partner during their individual speeches/cx.

I don't have a problem with speed, and I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but it probably means I've already missed something. If it's not on my flow, I can't vote off of it. For speaks, I start from a 27 and usually move up from there. Competitors should be generally polite to each other. A good performance in CX will boost your speaker points.

Please be prompt to rounds and come ready to debate (pre-flow beforehand) so there isn't idle time.

Most importantly, be nice to each other and have fun with the activity!

Grady Fultz Oakwood HS

Shane Gilbert Hackley School

Last changed on Tue March 12, 2024 at 6:49 AM PDT

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.

Kathleen Givan Hire

Bonnie Goldberg Half Hollow Hills

Mani Gupta Winston Churchill High School

Glen Gustafson West Orange High School

Tim Hanson DuPont Manual High School

Enguang He Livingston High School

Ryan Hosler Delbarton School None

Courtney Kaufman Byram Hills HS

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2018 at 11:42 AM EDT

Background: I debated for Bronx Science for three years, (class of 2012) and have been both a 2A/2N (Policy). I also went to Mount Holyoke College (class of 2016) and both debated and coached APDA parliamentary debate there. I also coach elementary, middle school, and high school debate for the New York City Urban Debate League. This year I am the Program Manager for NYCUDL.

Email me if you want notes / my flow after the round: courtney.d.kaufman@gmail.com

Philosophy - Public Forum

DO NOT BE RUDE.

Whatever you think is spreading is not actually that fast. Seriously. However, if you’re unclear I’ll let you know by saying 'clear.'

Be sure to both ask and take questions during cross-fire, this is your time to get speaker points.

I coach multiple formats and there's a fairly good chance that I'll mix up debate terms. If I call your crossfire cross-ex don't take it personally or doubt my competency because of it.

In the words of my friend and mentor Aubrey Semple, “Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few.) Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.”

I'd also like to quote Brian Manuel who is a coach whom I respect very much, "I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates.I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed.

Beyond that the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you."

In short, don't be rude, recognize the privilege that you bring to this activity, cite evidence and weigh and impact your arguments.

More specific questions? Ask me.

Have fun!

LAST UPDATED: 2/7/18

Adam Kirwan Timber Creek HS None

Balaji Krishnan West Windsor-Plainsboro HS South None

Judith Kroboth Downingtown STEM Academy

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 2:02 PM EDT

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

Ella Kuzmenko Riverdale Country School

Last changed on Sat September 15, 2018 at 7:30 PM EDT

Updated Yale 2018

On Ks

Don't read them. I've been robbed of too much education through listening to non topical and or critical cases. If both you and your opponent read Ks I will flip a coin and reflect my displeasure through appropriate minimization of speaks.

Background

Debate is a game and it's a game I really like which is why I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy it. I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Sammamish High School in Washington State, debated Policy for three years at NYU, and coached on the side. I'm a recent graduate and currently work as a consultant in DC which means 1) please ease into your spreading speed slowly and 2) run cool new arguments in front of me if you're testing something new and still working things out. Debate is a learning community; having me as a judge means I can give you as little or as much feedback as you like and we can bounce off as many or as little ideas as you like too. That being said, often times, running a solid stock case is often more impressive and more strategic than a shoddily thought out new idea, so choose wisely.

Judging Preferences:

General Advice:

Use blocks. Don't suspend logic when using blocks. Spread out your opponent with arguments from many different angles. Be strategic. Debate well.

ROB/ROJ/Theory:

I see debate as a game. I buy that everything can and should be justified because I presume nothing walking into the room.

This means, when reading a standard like "reducing xyz" or "maximizing abc", you need to justify why reducing xyz/maximizing abc is good. Don't get lazy with your warrants and don't assume I will know 1) that xyz/abc are what you think they are, 2) why they are what they are.

This goes double for extensions; even and especially if your opponent drops your argument, you need to extend claim, warrant, and impact of your argument or else you've dropped it as well (notice the and <--). Second, this means I will likely not be persuaded by ROB/ROJ whose premise or internal link is assumed or largely relies on a justification outside of the debate room.

Voters:

I think debate is a game. This means in order for me to vote for your ROB/ROJ/theory shell, you need to explain the actual abuse in the round and how your strategy specifically was affected. E.g. why is "fairness" a voting issue, what is it and what does it mean in the context of this actual room? Will new recruits really hear about this round when considering whether or not to join debate and after hearing that this debate round was unfair, decide not to join? Is it more about the principle of fairness? I've found that the most persuasive justifications tend to be those most closely linked to the very debate you've having and the very strategy you're employing (e.g. I couldn't read my nuke waste disad and that destroys my education because nuke waste is being voted on in XYZ county and we need to test out the implementation mechanism so we're better informed and I can be a more informed voter. I am very persuaded by such intelligent and contextualized arguments.

I am very persuaded by good T args. I largely agree with Scott Elliott's paradigm on T which you should definitely read here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6943.

Speed:

1. If you're spreading, please don't lower your voice; I will yell "louder" and this generally means "clear" but indicates you need to speak up too

2. I'm more impressed by debaters that speak at 60-70% of their actual speed but fill that time making good responsive arguments.

3. If you read incoherently in order to jam in more args I will not be able to flow your args, I likely won't be able to vote for you, and will reflect the argument presentation's incoherence in your speaks.

Plans/Ts:

There is not a position/argument I'm not comfortable with you reading, that being said if I haven't heard your argument, or even if I have but it's especially dense, slowing down and explaining it to me like I'm 10 will only help you (and your speaker points) in the long run.

Speaker Points:

I award speaker points based off your entire debate performance meaning your speeches and cross-examination and general demeanor. Masters of cross examination are generally great debaters because they see the cross ex as a performance and use it to set the tone of the rest of the debate.

Fun:

This paradigm sounds serious only because I want you to understand what my expectations are in order for the round to proceed in your favor, but if you're not having fun, you're not debating properly. :-)

Email:

If you have any additional questions or are including me on your email chain please use email esk378@nyu.edu. Thanks!

Yash Lahoti Hire None

Darlene Lambert Unionville

Christopher Lapinski Princeton

Francis Leong Regis High School

Ed Leung Wilmington Charter School None

Austen Li Hire None

Joyce Li Hire

Christina Lin Hire

Javier Lluch The Haverford School

Ammar Lone Poly Prep Country Day School

Alicia Lu Hire

Stephanie Luddy Bridgewater None

Jamie Mann Marriotts Ridge High School None

Jennifer Min Thomas Jefferson HSST None

Pamela Misir The Bronx High School Of Science None

Molly Mitchell Olympia HS

Ryan Monagle Ridge High School

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2019 at 7:11 PM EDT

UPDATED FOR NCFL 2019

Ryan Monagle Ridge High School PF coach

In general the clearest ballot story tends to win the round.

Speed: I'm fine with most speed, easiest way for me to comprehend your speaking style is by starting off at conversational pace through the first card so I can familiarize myself with your cadence. After that feel free to take off. Just a note on speed and spreading, I'm 100% 0kay with speed and enjoy it in really competitive rounds, however the speed needs to be justified by a greater depth in your argumentation and not just the need to card dump 100 blippy cards. If there is ever an issue of clarity I will say clear once, afterwards I will awkwardly stare at you if there is no change and then I will stop flowing.

Rebuttal: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST, If I lose you on the flow and miss responses that is on you. I'm fine with line by line responses though most of the time they tend to be absolutely unnecessary. I would rather you group responses. Card dumping will lead me to deducting speaker points. Trust me you don't need 6-7 cards to respond to a single warrant.

Summary: Don't try to go for literally everything in the round. By the time Summary comes around the debate should have narrowed down to a few pieces of offense. Any offense you want to go for in final focus has to be in summary. Whether or not you go for defense in 1st summary is up to those debating in round, sometimes it isn't 100% necessary for you to go for it, sometimes you need to so it to survive the round. You should make that evaluation as the round moves along.

Final Focus: Weigh in final, if neither teams weighs in round then I have to do it at the end of the round and you may not like how that turns out. Weighing should be comparative and should tell me why your offense should be valued over your opponents.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, typically I spend time writing the ballot and reviewing the flow. However, I still pay attention to most occurrences in crossfire. If you go for a concession be explicit and I'll consider it, but you need to extend it in later speeches. Also if you happen to concede something and then immediately go back on it in the next speech I am going to deduct speaks.

Speaker Points: My evaluation for speaker points revolves around presentation and strategy/tactics in the round that I'm judging. Feel free to try to make me laugh if you can I'll give you big props and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Please, I beg debaters to take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to challenge evidence ethics in round, I would gladly evaluate a protest in round and drop debaters for evidence violations. I think the practice of lying about/misrepresenting evidence is something a lot coaches and competitors want to see change, but no one takes advantage of the system that currently exists to combat these behaviors in round.

For NCFL: Judges can read evidence if the validity of the source is in question you have to explicitly tell the judge to call for the card in question.

Tina Moon-Lee Regis High School

Sara Morningstar Academy At Palumbo None

Ed Morrison Regis High School

Mitchell Mullen Millburn High School

Larry Mylander Lexington HS None

Carl Olson Berkeley Carroll School None

Aditya Pandey Byram Hills HS

Veronica Podolny Hire

Last changed on Sat February 9, 2019 at 7:14 AM EDT

I debated PF at Newton South High School. I'll flow and I can do speed, but I hate it. If you speak too fast and I miss something, that's on you.

(1) A great way to slow yourselves down is to not read all 15 responses you've prepared to a single contention. I appreciate quality of your blocks, not quantity. If you give me two responses that are a link-turn and impact weighing I'll appreciate that much more than a million cards that just say the opposite of their point.

(2) I really value probability analysis. Phrased another way: in a close round, I'm likely to evaluate the round on risk of offense. If you can cast enough doubt on your opponents' arguments and use those responses to weigh, that is valuable on my flow.

(3) If you're first speaking, you don't have to extend defensive responses in summary if they aren't responded to in your opponents' rebuttal as long as you bring them up in FF. However, so that you can ingrain them in my mind and use them to weigh, it might be a good idea to bring them up in summary.

(4) I'm far more likely to vote for a team whose summary and FF speeches tell a story of what voting for them looks like and what problems I can solve if I vote for them. It makes me feel good. Please re-explain and extend your arguments in summary and final focus instead of just responding to your opponents' responses. A summary strategy that includes blippy extensions of arguments without a cohesive narrative is not incredibly appealing to me. Also, extensions of arguments should include both the author names for the evidence and the warrants that back those cards.

(5) PLEASE WEIGH. In addition to extending your impacts in summary/FF you need to tell me why they are more important than the ones your opponent is extending. Even if they win their impacts, explain why yours still make you win the round.

(6) I default to a utilitarian framework. If you make no framework arguments, your contention better have a tangible impact -- "moral imperative" won't really fly unless you set up the debate and tell me why I should reject util. I'm not sure I've ever been convinced to reject util in a debate round, but I'll hear you out if you're convincing enough.

(7) I'll call cards if you ask me to call them.

(8) Be nice to your opponents in cross! Also I like good jokes. Try to win it but have fun with it and try to allow your opponents to enjoy themselves too.

I'm more than happy to discuss anything about the round after the round.

Felix Raj DuPont Manual High School

Stephanie Ramones Wellington HS

Last changed on Tue February 7, 2023 at 7:41 AM EDT

Debated in LD and PFD for Braddock high school in Miami Fl (c/o2007) and was an NDF fellow in 2007 and have been judging almost every year since. Have my ba and master in Psychology and Philosophy. I'm pretty removed from the debate community and judge maybe once or twice a year after having been pretty active for a year or two. So I'm not always up to date on the new trends.

2020 Update: Speaking of new trends i guess here's my email stephramones AT Gmail.com to send speeches and such. Outlines that i can copy and paste on a flow are my faves.

I Judge mostly PFD and LD. I've been getting away from LD as I've noticed that it's even worse than when I left it in terms of turning into 1 man policy. (Updated 2020, yup def 1 man policy).

I value clarity above all else. Just keep in mind speed kills but is mostly fine as long as it's clear. I shouldn't have to have a copy of your speech in front of me to follow it.

Make the round clear and easy for me and that starts with the constructives. I hate rounds with messy flows where I'm stuck doing work for you.

Fairly traditional. I'm "flow-centric" in both PF and LD in an effort to minimize intervening. I tend to flow big picture of contentions. Framework debate is key for me and I'll look there first unless you tell me otherwise and give me good reason (IMPACT AND WEIGHING PLEASE). I'll take a priori arguments, just as long as they make sense.

I like theory, if it's good and serves a purpose. Feel free to talk about the fairness of debate strategies. Define things for me, pretty much talk to me like I'm off the street and consider me a blank slate or at least very self-aware about my personal biases (See below).
Please ask before the round any specific questions or if I have any bias on the current topic. Things that generally may color my views are: I am social justice and left-oriented, I am originally from Venezuela and have Cuban heritage and grew up in a strong immigrant community in Miami. (SUPER RELEVANT FOR JANFEB 2023 VLD)

If you have clever ideas I'm a fan, keep debate interesting (however, this whole nuclear war K is bs I will vote it down on face...Don't get me started on the current state of LD rant). You will have to work hard to sell me on topicality.
Use philosophy well (I was a philosophy major) use research and statistics well (I was a psychology researcher at penn).

Again, Seriously, Please don't highlight the fact that debate in high school is pretty much intellectual masturbation by making outlandish arguments. Don't test me I will vote down irrelevant nuclear war and the like k's on face and principle alone. .
I've done it before in break rounds and I have no problem with being the squirrel. With that being said, if you're able to come up with creative arguments that are either topical or about the state of debate, I will reward and praise you.

What I think is obvious reasons I'll drop you on principle for

Racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, homophobic or xenophobic arguments (anything that was once said by trump and co. falls in this arena, particularly for the jan/feb 2023 VLD topic)
Fake sources (this includes briefs and breitbart)
Ad hominem arguments against your opponent

I believe in treating debate as preparation for the real world by which means don't be a jerk and flaunt your privilege and running ridiculous arguments to make you sound smarter than everyone in the room. I will call you out on that. Use debate to learn and demonstrate how to get your point across or at least begin a discourse on important issues, so as everyone can learn and I will like you and give you high speaks. I'm a kind and open-minded person and will do my best to give you RFDs for what you do well and could do better, both as a communicator and strategic debater. My goal with my critiques and RFDs is to help you win future rounds and overall be a better debater, scholar, and person.

High speaker points are given to confident clear speakers who manage to look up off their case with good logic and creative ideas and generally if you're a nice person (sorry I believe encouraging civility and niceness in debate). Don't be afraid to entertain me by being clever or funny at no one's expense except maybe your own. I particularly enjoy chill debaters who make the goal a conversation that moves forward.

Gonna say this one more time, If you're overly unclear, offensive, rude, or aggressive, depending on severity it will either cost you speaker points or completely cost you the round. Please don't yell at me, it hurts my head (spoken as a recovering debate yeller). #DontBeAJerk

Overall I'm pretty chill and will let you do mostly anything as long as it's clear and you tell me why you're doing it, also I'm fairly expressive in round watch my face you can usually tell how i feel about things. Have Fun, learn stuff, be nice.

Greg Schaer Freehold Townshipi None

Laurie Schmid Phillipsburg

Blaine Scofield Union Catholic

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 1:36 PM EDT

For the chain: blayneatbloomberglaw@gmail.com

Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!

I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.

Event specific info follows below.

I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.

What does that mean for you?

Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.

Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.

If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.

Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.

I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.

Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.

In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.

You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.

In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.

Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.

Policy

Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.

I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.

On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.

For T, I default to reasonability.

Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.

I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.

For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.

You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.

Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.

We all want an awesome round.

However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.

That’s definitely not awesome.

Keys to getting a good ballot:

* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.

* Talk about the resolution.

* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.

* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.

* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.

* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?

And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?

That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.

If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.

Josh Siegel Phillipsburg

Roopali Sikka Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Ellie Singer The Blake School (MS)

Last changed on Sun October 2, 2022 at 6:38 AM CDT

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that.

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

Ted Snyder Horace Mann HS

Sharon Squassoni Walt Whitman

Kate Sundeen Academy At Palumbo

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 6:17 AM EDT

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

Mike Suomi DSST: Cole

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:15 PM MDT

Former High School Policy Debater (before PF even existed) in Wisconsin and on National Circuit. Assistant Coach at STRIVE Prep - RISE in Denver, CO. Former coach of DSST: Cole High School in Denver, CO.

PF Specific Updates:

Read Evidence Call me old-school, but I'd like to hear you actually read evidence. I'm really not enjoying the paraphrased tag-line strategy that supposedly brings in the entire card of evidence and warrants without reading the actual warrants in the round. Some teams are "reading" more cards than a policy debate round would, but it is really just citing a bibliography with tags. Furthermore, this then can become a bunch of overtagged claims linked together to some extremely illogical argument that isn't supported by the literature. So, read more evidence. This would also make the rounds so much better because we could go more in depth rather than breadth and actual get to the warrants and clash between arguments.

Summary Speech I do think that summary speeches should be "summarizing" the round down and include all the arguments you plan on going for in the final focus. If you don't argue everything in summary then the round can get very messy with new story-lines/cards reappearing in the final focus speech from way back in the rebuttals but hadn't been talked about since, which seems borderline abusive but definitely makes the weighing and story of the round more confusing. Therefore, if your partner didn't talk about it in Summary I won't listen to your argument in Final Focus.

Overarching thoughts for both PF and Policy:

Evidence: I am evidence-focused and will ask for evidence if it is up for Debate (in both PF and Policy).
Warrants/Analysis/Links: The lost art of debate from what I've seen at a lot of local tournaments this year - please explain the warrants, analysis, and links/internal links of your arguments to be strong. If you do not adequately do this, don't be surprised by a decision that you might not agree with as I should not be doing any work on my end to make connections - that is your job to prove it to me.
Clash: The most successful debaters in front of me will clearly clash with their opponents arguments in the line-by-line and explain why those arguments are flawed or not as good as your counter-analytics/evidence.
Speed: I can handle speed (as long as your speed is clear), but for the fastest teams will require some slight slowing on tags/authors and analytics/non-evidence based arguments (for example when reading your Aff Plan Details or arguing Topicality) so I can adequately capture everything. If during the round it becomes clear you are a lot faster than the other team, please do not continuing spreading to the point of being mean or your speaks will drop. (Also, for PF when you aren't actually reading evidence even slow speed can be hard for me to flow because I just can't keep up flowing a million tag lines.)
Flow/Drops: I am a flow judge, and do take dropped arguments seriously. However, I also much prefer argumentation and analysis than a ticky-tack debate about who dropped what. Furthermore, if all you say is "they dropped it, so it flows for us" - I will not give it much weight as you need to explain the importance of the argument and how it matters in the round for me to care about it otherwise you effectively dropped it as well by not explaining it. Also, for PF teams that don't talk about a particular contention after their constructive until the Final Focus and then say "our opponents dropped our contention, so we should win on that" I will not take that seriously as you also effectively dropped it throughout the round.
Social Etiquette: Do not be bigoted or racist in anyway despite the fact our country seems to currently be okay with that - this is the only time you would ever see judge intervention from me.

Policy Specific Paradigm:

Policy Maker: I would consider myself a policy-maker that evaluates the impacts of the round for Aff vs Neg. Therefore, 2NR and 2AR would do well to frame the round in term of impact analysis and explain why their impacts are the most critical to be solved - this can be argued and justified in many ways, so convince me.
Like Well-Argued Kritiks/Critiques: I really enjoy Kritik/Critique arguments. However, most teams do not do them super well as they are deeply philosophical arguments that are often very nuanced. If you argue that fiat is illusory (this is not required, and I actually appreciate the kritiks that have real policy impacts more as they are often more believable and interesting in the debate), you better not link harder to the Kritik in your on-case arguments than your opponent. Also, if fiat is illusory, I do want to hear convincing arguments for your alternative and how voting for you actually achieves this alternative goal (and why the Aff can't just perm it and talk/acknowledge the problems in the pre-fiat world but still debate a hypothetical post-fiat policy world). Also as a recommendation, if you are truly going for a Kritik, you should spend substantial time dedicated to it from both evidence and analytic standpoints as they are complicated topics that should be in some ways outside the "game" of debate.
Limit Topicality/Theory Arguments: While I will vote on topicality/theory arguments if forced to, I do not enjoy them in any way. I understand running T is a negative strategy as a time suck, so I am okay with one or two T arguments and won't hold it against you, but I hope the round doesn't come to Topicality and the quicker they get punted the better. For someone to win on topicality/theory it will have to be largely dropped or actually show very real abuse (with open-evidence project and familiarity of cases/topics, I have a hard time believing there is very much actual abuse that is happening though, so it better be convincing and don't be surprised if I give leeway to reasonable arguments from the other team.)

Karthik Tadepalli Hire

Sonja Trainor Walt Whitman None

Andrew Valdez Hire None

Christian Vasquez The Blake School (MS)

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 2:46 PM CDT

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:

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?
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).
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.
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
A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Min Wang Unionville None

Kevin Xiang Livingston High School

Tiffany Yuan Hire

Login to Tabroom

43rd University of Pennsylvania Tournament

2018 — Philadelphia, PA/US

Varsity Public Forum Debate Paradigm List

Judges