National Debate Coaches Association National Championship
2018 — Marist School, GA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I debated in PF for Poly Prep in Brooklyn NY. I was pretty good.
The second rebuttal should respond to all offense on the flow. I prefer second speaking teams also respond to terminal defense/overviews, but defense won't count as dropped until after summary.
Turns not extended into summary become defense, unless your opponent extends through it. In that case, it's offense again.
I don't flow author names. Refer to the arguments.
I default neg on BOP positive statement resolutions.
For second speaker teams; if your overview could easily have been a contention, I already hate it. When flowing on my laptop, I will literally not have a place to flow it - nor will I make one. Second rebuttal case turns should either a) respond within the framework debate or b) signpost to relevant links in case.
First speaking teams; go nuts.
Advocacies, Plans and Fiat Power In PF.
"I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine" - Caspar Arbeeny. Inherency is always better than fiat. Conditional advocacies are bad. "We kick out" never removes a turn, but speech time to de-link yourself from a turn can.
If you have any qualms, questions or concerns about my preferences, please do not hesitate to inform me. There is no penalty for trying to change the way I view debate.
Contact info: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: American Heritage Plantation, Poly Prep Country Day
Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year.
General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.
High theory: 1
K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.
Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.
LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.
Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.
Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.
Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.
Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.
PF Paradigm: I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.
Background: Debated mostly Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School although I did a couple of PF tournaments here and there.
Last Update 11/16/16
Summary: I usually prefer DA Case CP debate but K's are fine if I can understand it. Really don't want to vote on theory though.
- I don't take prep for flashing or emailing unless the tournament is running behind or tab is nagging me to get done faster
- Keep the debate calm and more relaxed
- I probably won't look at evidence unless it is specifically indicted or highlighted
- I haven't had a lot of experience with this topic so please don't use too many abbreviations and acronyms
- I don't know much about China policy as of this year but I know a good amount of Japanese politics and policy if that helps you at all
- Please don't read an econ impact in front of me if your internal links aren't amazing. I study economics and unless your internal link and solvency cards are by economists with a ton of numbers. I like warming impacts and sciencey impacts like nuclear fusion since they interest me and I would probably more likely to pay attention to them
- I'm getting tired of heavy impact debates and overviews. It seems like most of the time the debate boils down to nothing
- Solvency debates and debates about the actual aff are the most enjoyable for me since they make the debate less generic. They also have to be explained a lot more in detail since I probably won't know it
- I really like DA debates
- The DA debate is probably going to be won or lost at the link level so I would probably focus on that
- I like CP's but I'm sometimes easily confused about what they do so you have to make it clear in CX or the 2NC as to what it does
- I'm fine with judge kicking the CP even if you don't say it, given you extend case
- I'm very hit or miss when it comes to K's. Often I get very confused by the barrage of information 2N's introduce in the block. Here's my advice if you decide to go for a K in front of me, slow down when you get to the K flow and explain everything as if I've never debated before
- K debates are way too technical and I hate that. Debate the K like how your authors would, slowly and philosophically
- The link debate is honestly the only important thing about the K debate. If you run a K, I'm pretty much going to agree that you that you will outweigh the aff. I will, however, give you a much higher threshold to meet for the link so you need to spend about 75% of your time on the link debate
- K tricks are stupid and cheap ways to win rounds so I'm probably not voting for them
- On the aff the first thing you should do is just hammer that 1NC link evidence. It's usually super generic
- I probably won't for T unless it is pretty much obvious that the aff is untopical. I'm probably going to default to reasonability
- If it is a questionable aff, then please make the impacts clear and go slow.
- If you prove that the aff is untopical but still lose the impact debate then I'll probably still just vote for you
- I honestly don't know how I feel about these since I've only encountered a single unorthodox debate. I would prefer it if your argument is topical
- If you do something really weird I'm probably going to have this confused look on my face and default to the more orthodox team
I hate voting on theory. Please don't make it a theory debate and if you do slow down. Theory about one specific argument is a reason to reject the argument.
- Word PICs: have to be extremely justifiable
- 50 State Fiat: stupid but not an immediate reason to reject
- International Fiat: good
- Consult and Conditions CP's: depends on the solvency advocate
- Condo: probably won't vote on unless dropped or perfcon
- Multiplank CP's: fine if you have a solvency advocate for each plank
- CP Perms: can make the CP go away, not sure about it as an advocacy
- K Perms: kind of dumb. Just go for the no link
I previously debated policy for Damien High School for four years (2001-2005), attending the TOC once in my senior year. In college, I debated for 3 years for the University of Georgia (2005-2008). I preferred critical debate towards the end of high school, and gravitated towards more traditional arguments in all other years. Besides debate, I am a PhD candidate in Computer Science at the University of Georgia, and currently work as the lead data scientist researching for an Atlanta-based startup, SalesLoft.
That being said, I am almost a decade since my last round, so keep this in mind. I have very little experience with contemporary debate techniques. Additionally, being so long detached from debate, speed is generally not recommended, with high clarity preferred.
In terms of preference of argumentation, I have none. I believe debate is about the art of argumentation and, therefore, can be compelled to judge under a variety of interpretations. I leave it to the debaters to frame how I should evaluate the debate and, when given no litmus, I default to the technical execution of the competing topics presented, as opposed to the philosophical implications of the debate. If you do strive to win the debate on the latter approach, tell me how my ballot choice is involved.
Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School.
Policy Debater for 4 years in HS (Sandburg)
4 years of Policy in college (Augustana 1 year, NIU 3 years)
8 years assisting a team with Lincoln-Douglas and PF.
5th year as head coach
When it comes to LD, I am definitely more traditional even though I've spent a lot of time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. I think the idea of LD becoming 1 person policy is unfortunate. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round. I have judged LD often on the local circuit in IL. If you are a more progressive LD debater, you likely don't want me in the back of the room.
I'm ok with most things in PF except plans/disads/etc. This is not policy.
IF YOU LISTEN TO NOTHING ELSE, PLEASE ENSURE THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN CARDS AND TAGS
I'm not going to fight to understand what your're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.
I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a yearly resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. 2015 example: Your affirmative should have some connection to domestic surveillance.
Topicality – I like T. I think the problem with it is that not enough explanation occurs of the actual abuse the Neg faces and debaters fly through it so fast that it is impossible to catch each argument. I feel like there should be some legit abuse or at the very least major pot. abuse.
Theory - ugh. I know debate can't live without it so I'll say this.....I'm pretty lenient with multiple conditional arguments that aren't extremely ridiculous. I also find theory debates boring. Topic debate good.
Kritiks -- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand your K. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.
1. BE CLEAR. If you are fast but not clear, I am not flowing. You can go as fast as your mouth and lungs will let you, but if you are not clear it will most likely be detrimental to you. I will say clear twice. If you don't adjust I will probably stop flowing.
1A. Make sure there is a clear distinction between tags and cards
Be a good person.
Updated for 2018 Cold & Flu Season: I do not shake hands with debaters after I've judged you. Just a heads up to save us both that awkward exchange at the end of the round. :)
Experience/Background: I coach at Columbus HS, primarily Public Forum. I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF since 2014, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. Many of my students have qualified to TOC (2016-present) and NSDA Nats (2015-present) in Public Forum, and I teach at summer debate institutes--in short, even though I didn't debate personally, I know what's going on and I'm very aware of national circuit norms and trends, as well as the cornerstones of more traditional circuits.
If you have specific questions about me as a judge, please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:
1. Speed: I don't have a problem with speed for the most part. On a 1-10 scale, I can handle an 8, though you should not consider that a green light to take off at top speed. My tolerance for speed does drop when a) it is late in the day/tournament or b) I have judged more than 5ish rounds that day. I will always value the quality of your arguments over the quantity of words you may be able to squeeze into a four or two minute speech. Similarly, I understand debate jargon just fine, but if your goal in over-using debate-speak is to confuse your less-experienced opponents or muddy up a round, I'm probably not going to respond well to that.
2. Flowing: I do flow. Usually on my laptop. If I am flowing on paper, something is very wrong and you should drop your speed to around a 6, or I will miss a lot of what you're saying. I probably won't look at you much during the debate, but I am listening and flowing, and I am aware when you're attempting to make connections with me as a judge - so carry on with what you're doing.
3. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed or helpful, at least if you're just going "their case, our case." If you're doing something complicated with overviews and observations, then roadmaps are fine and appreciated.
4. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky." Please weigh. I can deal with a line-by-line summary, but prefer voters.
5. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.
6. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.
7. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours. This is a newer development in my judging philosophy, so if I've judged you before...this may be a change from the past.
8. Theory: I am a really bad judge to attempt to run theory in front of. I would much rather you just debate the resolution. If you really feel it's necessary to call out some sort of theory issue, do it quickly...but don't make it the sole thing you want me to vote on, please, or spend a ton of time on it.
9. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.
10. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. If you ask what it takes to get a 30 from me, you'll be lucky to get a 29. I do appreciate wit.
Director of Speech & Debate at Marist School in Atlanta, GA (2011-present)
Director of Debate/Asst Director of Debate, Fayette County High School in Fayetteville, GA (2006-2011)
Updated for 2020-2021 and Online Debate
Please add email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org to the email chain. This should be started in the tech time.
Both teams should use it and send the constructives at a minimum. I am fine with constructives being sent after they are read in the debate. Please call the email chain something real like "Kentucky Round 1 - Marist VL vs Marist HN." If you read cards, you should send the cards in the order they are read. If you paraphrase, you should send your paraphrasing and the cards that you paraphrased in the order that you read.
some major bullet points adapting to me:
- i prefer you read cards. this doesn't mean i won't evaluate paraphrasing and it doesn't mean that i'll automatically drop you on paraphrasing bad theory it just means that better arguments are made by the experts you quote in your evidence than your interpretation of the experts. i wouldn't waste a strike on me if you paraphrase but still cut cards.
- speeches build off of each other. everything in the final focus should be in the summary. second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal.
- made up jargon is bad. clarity of impact is not a thing.
- i prefer substantive debates to theory debates. i really am not a fan of theory. i have strong beliefs in how debate should be done, but i have stronger beliefs in learning about topics. read theory if you must, and I'll obviously evaluate it - but i do prefer a debate about the topic.
- i value hard work. Debate is hard. It's rewarding because its hard. The debate you have in front of me should a representation of your hard work you spent preparing for that debate.
I'm what my students call "flay." Be nice, be logical, speak clearly. I don’t like excessive terminology.
I did PF in high school and I am now a senior in college, do with that information what you will. Please add email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org to the email chain. This should be started in the tech time. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain something like "Grapevine Round 1 - Marist VL vs Marist HN."
- I hate paraphrasing, please cut cards. I think it's bad for the activity, 9/10 times is misrepresentation, and high schoolers are less informed than the academics they are citing. I won't drop you for paraphrasing, but please make it abundantly clear where you pulled your argument from the text. (If it is clear, you could have saved yourself and everyone else a whole lot of time by just reading the card in the first place)
- I will vote on the most cleanly extended and well weighed argument in the round.
- Respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal please (your speaker points will reflect whether you did). I will not evaluate new defense in second summary on offense dropped by the second rebuttal.
- Make sure your extensions of arguments are extensions of the entire argument. Saying "extend the Jones '12 turn" in summary is not sufficient for you to go for that turn in final focus, for example.
- I will evaluate theory, k's, etc., but I prefer debates on the topic. This is simply because I feel that I am much better at judging debates on the topic. So, if you choose to read these arguments go for it, but understand that I need you to explain exactly how they should influence my ballot.
was denver independent/denverlake independent, 2x qualified to the toc, won some debates, berkeley '20, assistant head of ms speech and debate for harker. not really judging that much anymore, but still engaged w the topic to some extent.
my email is email@example.com – please put me on the email chain.
tdlr: you should not pref me if:
- you intentionally don’t disclose
- your strategies rely heavily on friv theory/tricks
- you are going to be rude and uninterested in the debate
- your strategies rely primarily on personal attacks of other debaters
- you find yourself postrounding judges for egregiously long times after the rfd
tldr: you should pref me if:
- you do not do the above
- you like high theory
- you like going 6 off w tricky cps + disads
- you like well researched politics scenarios
- record your speeches -- if you, me, or an opponent cuts out, you don't get to re-do the speech -- you only get to send the local copy you made.
- please monitor the chat so that if there's a technical error we can adjust as quickly as possible
- see Rodrigo Paramo's paradigm for essentially all my thoughts on online debate
· IMPORTANT: flex prep means asking questions during prep time - in no world does unused cx time become prep time - what????? you get your 4 (or 5) minutes that's it no more of this nonsense
· larp>>good k debate>>>theory heavy debate>>bad k debate>>tricks and phil
· i flow cx -- that means i’m exhausted of the arg that "cx doesn't check because judges don't flow it", that doesn't mean you don't need to make the arguments you establish in your actual speech.
· i’m not into postrounding. this includes but is not limited to: talking at me for thirty minutes, trying to re-read your 2a/nr at me, sending me excessive emails about why you think my decision is wrong. if you have had me in the back and have postrounded me every time, you should... maybe think about redoing your pref sheet!
· explain what perm do both looks like (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
· if you want/will need me to look at an interp/counterinterp/perm you read, those things must be sent within the speech doc. i will hold you to what is written, or you will risk me just evaluating the words I heard -- that also means no shifty changing in cx!!
· given how clear it is to me that no one can really flow a debate round as it is delivered based on prep time just becoming a spec review, you are fine to toss out a "slow" at your opponents if you can't flow/understand at their top speed. this is better than you asking 1000 clarification questions during your prep time.
total average, at present, is a 28.53. i have never given a 30. no ceiling on excellence!
things that help speaks: technical competence, numbering, getting the round started on time, good articulation of k lit, bataille, irigaray.
things that hurt speaks: making unstrategic decisions, no explanation of arguments, messy overviews, messy speeches, morally heinous arguments, unclear spreading of theory blocks.
· if the 2nr is split, it will hurt your speaker points
· i will evaluate judge kick arguments
· please slow down on theory
· bracketing is not good, disclosure definitely is. be reasonable here though -- if your opponent literally has never heard of the wiki and you immediately try to crush them on disclosure theory, i will be unhappy :<
· i am not very persuaded by frivolous theory arguments and will hold responses to a lower level of depth than with well developed, pertinent theory args. if you have to ask me if a theory arg is frivolous before the round i think you probably know what the answer is.
· rvis – primarily on topicality – are not persuasive to me
k affs –
things you need to do when you’re reading these sorts of affs
· utilize 1ac ev through the whole debate and contextualize your answers to the theories in your aff
· explain exactly what the aff does/aims to do – are you working towards a paradigmatic shift in how we approach (x) policy or are you criticizing the structure of debate itself? what does voting aff do to resolve those issues?
· understand that teams sometimes just read framework because they don’t know how else to necessarily engage your aff.
· have good background knowledge... i'm so unenthused by people who pull out their ~fire~ baudrillard aff and then make args about creating meaning being good... like what? i will you to a high standard of background knowledge and contextualization/explanation.
i feel more qualified to judge high theory args than i do performances or args centered on individual identity.
fw vs k affs –
my record shows me leaning slightly more neg on framework vs k affs (maybe around 60/40?) presuming you’re not reading fairness impacts (in which case it drops to like 30/70). i think arguments about the specific mobilization/utilization of skills gained uniquely from debate tend to be much more convincing. things i’d like to see in these debates:
· examples of how movements outside of the political sphere have used political knowledge to further their cause
· reasons why knowing about the way legal systems work/interact is good
· a defense of fiat/hypothetical discussions of policies
· contextualized case arguments (which can often answer back for the “they didn’t engage us” claims)
policy affs vs ks –
too many teams pivot to the left when they hear a k in the 1nc. just defend what you did in the 1ac and explain why it’s good. some things that i think are important to do in these debates:
· win framework/win fiat/win why hypothetical discussions of policies are good
· answer the long k overview from the 2nc
· be able to explain/give examples of what the permutation will look like (you definitely get a perm)
· actually debate the k rather than just reading author indicts
· not back down from big stick impacts. you know what ground you get against literally every baudrillard k? heg good.
you need to have background knowledge of the lit and arguments, i will know if you just pulled a backfile out or haven't engaged with the lit in necessary ways! i only ever went one off in high school so i will expect a high level of articulation from you in regards to explaining your arguments and contextualizing them to the aff specifically. some things i’d like to see in a k debate
· specific quotes being pulled from the 1ac on the 2nc link debate
· technical debating rather than reading a 6 min o/v and saying it answers all the aff arguments
· having a good, in-depth explanation of the theory of your argument/why and how it interacts with the aff in cx when asked about it
some authors i have read/continue to read in my free time/am knowledgeable about (bets are off for anyone not listed) ranked from most liked to “ehhhh”:
irigaray (bring her back), bataille, lacan/psychoanalysis, baudrillard, spanos (bring him back), berlant, edelman, deleuze/deleuze and guattari
i love seeing a well debated disad as much as i love seeing a well debated critique. i think it is really important to have good evidence and good analysis in these debates.
i am less familiar with very specific political processes disads so i may need more explanation of those whether that occurs in a quick 2nc overview or in cx given the opportunity. some things i’d like to see:
· good case engagement along with the disad. this means good impact calc as well as judge instruction
· clear explanation of the political scenario you're reading if it's a politics disad, clear analysis on the link chains if it's not a politics disad
· actual cards after the 1nc
truly a 2n at heart; i’ll grant you a lot of leniency in how shifty your counterplans can be. i think really specific counterplans are one of the greatest things to see in debate.
· if you cut your cp evidence from 1ac evidence/authors you’ll get a boost in speaks!
· i also think (specific, not generic word) piks/pics are pretty underutilized -- especially against k affs – i’d love to see more of these.
· i don’t think explanation-less "perm do the counterplan" or "perm do the aff" are legit.
less qualified to judge these debates imo, but will still listen to them. please slow down and don't spread through blocks -- i'll stop flowing if i can't understand it.
i have no tolerance for frivolous theory. if you are reading arguments related to what your opponents wear or what esoteric word needs to be in the 1ac, i will not enjoy the debate and will most likely not vote for you!
a good block/2nr contains a well thought out and developed interpretation of what the topic is/view of how the topic should be explained and debated in regards to specific arguments that can/cannot be justified vis a vis the topic wording.
i really like to see good lists in t debates (untopical affs made topical by the aff’s interp, clearly topical affs that are excluded by the neg’s interp, etc).
nebel is fine to read in front of me because it’s a warranted argument! there is no good world in which somebody can just say ‘nebel bad vote aff’ and win on that! this should not be so controversial! however, if you don't understand the semantics/pragmatics difference, this will really frustrate me. the nebel debates frustrate me anyway b/c, as it is explained presently, it is to an extent a bastardization of linguistic theory, so you should understand that if you're going to read it.
case debate –
there needs to be more of it in every debate. go for impact turns. i love dedev. recutting aff cards.... amazing. if the negative drops your case or does not spend time on it you can spend less time on it in the 1ar/2ar too!!!!
i'm not into rhetoric violations. please ensure that it is not just a singular slip of the tongue -- often times a mention in cx/the speech and a genuine apology from the team who said it suffices and provides more education overall.
if there is egregious/violent language, i will take it upon myself to appropriately intervene and adjudicate on a case-by-case basis.
i'm lenient on ethics violations. if an ethics violation is called, i will stop the round after getting evidence of the violation from the team that called it and make my decision based on the tournament invite, the ndca rules, and the round itself.
“This forum, like all public forums, is a waste of time”
- Ron Swanson (JK, I just love Ron.)
- Read good evidence and make sure I can understand the card citation. Its not real if I can't hear where its from.
- Defense is overvalued
- Weighing, indights and offense are undervalued
Things I enjoy seeing in round:
- Turns > Link debates
- Empirics and quantifiable impacts.
- Lots of evidence
- Risky/Off-the-wall arguments… as long as they still make sense.
- Well-weighed arguments extended through the Final Focus, even if that means you’re kicking out of others. Write my ballot for me. Some of the best teams I’ve seen lose and/or drop every argument but one, and still win the round.
- Use Cross well. Make it constructive. Being funny and/or sassy never hurts, either.
- Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.
- Give me clear voters. Tell me why I should vote for you in your Summary/FF.
Things I DO NOT like:
- Improperly citing evidence.
- People that lie in the 2nd FF
- Off-time roadmaps. The only time to give one is if I need a new piece of flow-paper because you’re going off-case, or if you’re doing something otherwise out of the ordinary.
- Miscutting/manipulating evidence
- When you say an author and I can't understand. Don't be like..."Blah, 17 says..."
- Using rhetoric claims about discrimination and abuse or anything. Be careful about making blatant statements about these topics that could across as offensive.
- I pretty much hate framework. Most PF teams provide a framework and then really don't work within it or it becomes a framework debate. I DO NOT, REALLY DON'T, LIKE SERIOUSLY HATE a 45 min debate on framework and the case does not adhere to the framework you present. Yes...you all run C/B Analysis for 99% of everything and most of you don't understand anything about economics or actually present a valid C/B Analysis then just don't waste our time. Let's just agree that the flow is king and you need to prove stuff. Lets just agree there is one framework..Impact Calc...I will weigh who has the better impacts. Enough said.
Don’t do these things in front of me.
Speed: I like speed up to like 325 wpm. If you go really really slowly I might get bored and start drawing pictures of butterflies and flowers on my flow, so speed is prob in your best interest. Slow down on tags and authors if you’re really fast.
Other technical things:
- I’ll only evaluate things that are in both Summary and FF.
- I don’t flow crossex, but you should refer to things that happened in cross in your next speech. I don't care how you do it or even if you do it. Please don't try to be sneaky and assume you can stare at me during cross and think you can get another speech in. Naw, I'm good and don't care what you have to say. I will probably be on my phone, computer or watching Netflix or something.
I coach PF.
I life PF.
I work with NSDA in PF.
PF is good.
The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.
Some aspects that are critical for me
1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.
2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.
3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.
4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.
5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.
6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".
7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"
8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.
Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.
-I mostly weigh what is in the final focus, and because of this, tell me what to weigh in the debate in your speech.
-I'll allow a brief amount of defense for the first speaking team, but if it’s in the final focus, it must be in the summary.
-Try to have clean Cross Xs: don't interrupt your opponent too much and try not to get too muddled, or spend the whole time on one question (unless it's crucial to the debate)
-Don’t steal prep
Please add both emails to the chain.
I will not read the email chain unless I need it for evidence after round. It should not be a crutch for you to rely on. If I don’t catch it, the argument isn’t on my flow.
Assistant Debate Coach, The Blake School – 2014-Present
Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School – 2013-14
Updated because a lot has changed since I first wrote that paradigm 7 years ago.
I see debate as a research oriented activity with elements of persuasion and communication built in. The “logic” of a student’s argument should always start grounded in literature and research done by experts and any analysis done should stem from it. Otherwise, I’m just listening to teenagers make things up and that sounds like a waste of my time. I am not the judge for your rounds especially if you plan on reading through three word clips followed by an author name and no date.
The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team.
I expect that the second speaking team interacts in some fashion with the arguments made by the first rebuttal. I don’t need a perfect 2-2 split, but I should at least hear you respond to offensive arguments made in order to stay relevant in the round.
All defense needs to be extended in the following speech if you want me to consider it. The final focus cannot go for anything that wasn't included in the summary.
I don’t think that an argument needs a number next to it to necessarily matter in the round. In fact, I find arguments that are a string of “x number leads to y, y is equivocal to z points…” and the like to be unpersuasive. I do not know what inputs exists for this haphazardly thrown together equation nor do I think cross-applying studies in this fashion takes into account differences in how the research was conducted and on what groups.
I think observations/frameworks that provide actor obligations/requirements are interesting and underutilized. They provide me a neat set of rules for the round to be evaluated.
My speaker points average 27.7 these days if that’s important to you.
On theory, kritiks, and whatever else “progressive” argumentation you would like to read:
I default to a position of reasonability > competing interps.
RVIs are silly, you shouldn’t be able to score points for following rules. Paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good.
Good is good enough. On most theory questions in PF, the decision is a binary one. Is disclosure good, is paraphrasing bad, etc. are easy to decide. I’m not a fan of rather arbitrary differences post the initial question(open source vs first-three-last-three as an example).
Introduction of theory arguments should happen in the speech directly following the violation. Out of round violations should be introduced in constructives.
Frivolous theory such as shoes or whatever else people have made up at this point is a pretty quick intervention by me. Whatever you’re reading, you should fully believe that the norm makes debate rounds more educational, and fair.
Kritiks are fair game, give me specific links please. Discourse oriented alts I don’t find that compelling and are usually missing a pretty detailed framing debate to win.
Johns Creek HS '17
Email --> firstname.lastname@example.org
I'll vote on whatever you want but I do not like the K, at all.
If you ain't reading a plan you ain't winnin the ballot.
"First team to trivialize or deny the Holocaust loses." - Becca Steiner
More Info available on request.
Phish references = +.1 speaker points
add me to the email chain pls!!! email@example.com
i am very short and am often confused for a high school child. yes I am your judge.
Who I am:
Denver East/Denver Independent '17
UC Berkeley '21 (go bears)
I debated policy in high school, TOC qualified, almost entirely as an independent entry. currently coach for Harker.
tldr: if you're wondering if you can read *x* argument in front of me, the answer is yes. I am familiar with and have read K literature, the politics DA, performance, framework, counterplans, high theory, heg good affs, etc. don't tailor your argument to fit what you think I want to hear. do what you're good at and explain your arguments well and there won't be any problems.
in terms of speaking—despite spreading, I believe debate is still an exercise in persuasion and public speaking. look at me! make jokes! be charismatic! make fun of the other team's arguments/yourself/people I know!
Things I think are rules of debate:
tech > truth
you cannot clip cards
you must flash/show your evidence to your opponents
you cannot text or communicate otherwise with anyone who is not your partner during the round
you cannot steal prep
debater-directed sexist/racist/prejudiced speech or behavior is never acceptable
Things I do not think are rules of debate:
whether or not you are topical
using the internet to look up what the hell that weird K word means (this is ok)
being nice to your opponents (tho you will lose speaker points if you are not)
being nice to me (tho I'll like you more if you are)
what you choose to do with your speech/prep time
This is somewhat new to me! I have been coaching/judging LD for about 3 years now, but I never debated LD in high school. so, for whatever this means to you, I will approach the round from a somewhat policy perspective. sorry. some stuff just gets ingrained. that being said, I like judging LD! feel free to ask any clarifying questions, but these are my main thoughts:
If you're thinking of going for the most convoluted, tricky, weird (no offense), LD jargon-y theory argument, I'm probably not your gal. too often I have found myself frantically trying to keep up with someone as they spread through some theory block their coach wrote for them years ago or some absolutely ridiculous violation of a made up rule with little to no contextualization to the round. this will not be particularly persuasive to me.
don't get me wrong, I'm good with speed and I like a good theory debate. that being said—call me crazy, but ripping through your theory block SO QUICKLY that i practically break my keyboard trying to taking down maybe 70% of what you say is a BAD theory debate. if I can't flow it comfortably, I won't.
no RVIs on T. just no.
pretty much everything else applies from my policy paradigm (see below). I vibe with both Ks/fun, critical affs and heg good affs/tricky econ DAs. do ur thing.
POLICY DEBATE: see everything below
do what u want! this is what I did. I will hold you to a very high threshold when it comes to answering framework because this is an argument that you ABSOLUTELY need to have good answers to if you are choosing to read a K aff. if you chose to advocate something (which you probably should), tell me what it is and why it matters. tell me what my ballot means. use your 1AC. too often the actual aff gets lost in clash of civ debates and I hate when the 2AR is nothing but "framework bad". framework is not bad or evil. it is an argument to test the compatibility of your argument with the activity of debate.
as a judge, my perspective on FW debates has evolved considerably from when i was a debater. you are on the side of truth—use it. read specific interpretations and topical versions of the aff. tell me specifically what about the aff is unfair/abusive. HOW DOES THE AFFIRMATIVE ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT DEBATE IS A COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY WITH A WINNER AND A LOSER. please don't make it hard for me to vote for you—if the aff reads a bunch of "disads" against your framework, ANSWER THEM.
yes!!!! I like Ks. read them well. this includes going very in-depth with the link debate in the block, articulating your alternative well, explaining the relationship between the squo/the world of the aff/the world of the alt, and most importantly: clear, developed framework that tells me how I should evaluate the round and what my ballot means in terms of the K. *side note* if you're reading a K your coach just threw at you moments before the round because you think I'm a K hack and I'll like it better than a policy arg, don't. I will be sad.
I decided to add this here after some thought, and my goal is not to offend anyone with this section. please be careful when reading language/rhetoric Ks in front of me (ex. "you guys"/ableist rhetoric). unless the K is either connected to the argument you are reading or genuinely comes from a place of passion and desire to improve debate, please don't read it. a simple call out during CX should suffice and is often a more effective way of changing this kind of speech. obviously I will deal with any egregiously offensive language. but if the team you are debating unintentionally lets slip a word that carries offensive connotations to a certain group—this should not be treated as an instant ballot for you. it is an opportunity to educate and should be handled as such. if you have questions feel free to ask me :)
Affs v. Ks:
pretty much the inverse of my stance on Ks. attack each and every link, point out flaws in the alternative, tell me why the aff is better than both the squo and the alt, and make good framing args. for critical affs against the K- articulate and execute the permutation if you have one, but please explain what the perm looks like.
yep. compare and explain your definitions/interpretations and tell me why they're better. attach your interpretation specifically to the topic and the necessity to exclude THIS aff in particular. fairness can be an impact, but explain why it is at stake in this round.
I love them!!! the CP should be both textually and functionally competitive. I will listen to it and vote for it even if its not, but it should be.
disads are great by themselves but are best when paired with a more offensive argument in the 2NR. specific links will get you far.
I don't air a certain way on any theory arguments, however I believe they are almost never reasons to reject the team. the only thing important to me is that you contextualize all of the arguments you are making to what is happening in the round.
I feel like I'm pretty normal in terms of baseline views—the neg should be allowed to read counterplans, etc etc.
I also sometimes judge this lol. in that case, ignore all of that ^ because it won't affect how I judge PF. the only way that my policy/LD background sneaks into my PF judging is that I think almost every final focus goes for too much. I know this isn't as common of a practice as it is in policy, but pick an argument you are winning and go for it. frame my ballot around it. I will not punish you if you don't extend every aspect of your case‚ unless you needed to because the other team did something funky/put offense on it.
also, I am probably the most informal judge you will ever have. you don't have to ask me if you can stand or sit during crossfire or if you're allowed to use the bathroom, take your jacket off, etc. I do not care.
La Costa Canyon/Leucadia Independent 2012-2016
Emory University 2016-2019
Yes, I want to be on your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Read into these
- an argument has a claim, warrant, and impact
- line by line is important
- try or die is a bad way to make decisions
- zero risk is possible
Do your thing. I prefer affs to have a tie to the topic in some way.
Sure. Impact comparison is important. I don't like late-breaking cross applications in these debates.
I do not read very much high theory/postmodernism literature.
Do good, specific link work, make smart turns case arguments, and use empirical examples to demonstrate your argument.
You are unlikely to convince me that the K should be rejected on face, or that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the implementation of their plan.
Love it. Please please please do impact comparison. Have a clearly articulated vision of what the topic would look like under both interpretations. Reasonability is best articulated as an argument for aff predictability.
You should assume I know little about the HS topic - that means your examples (eg what affirmatives the aff's interp would allow) need to be explained.
Cool. I like advantage counterplan debates.
Love to hear topic DAs, and I like impact turn debates.
- I don’t have a strong opinion about conditionality.
- The shorter your overviews, the better your speaks.
- Create as much spin as you can - control the way I look at issues and pieces of evidence.
- Death is bad.
- If a team asks to use prep to ask more cx questions, feel free to say no. And no, you can't use your cx as prep.
- Don't be an asshole.
I debated PF all through high school, coached all through college, and am now coaching at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. My role in the round is to interpret the world you aim to create, and to that end you should tell me explicitly what it is you are trying to do. I stick to the flow as well as I can.
common question answers:
1. Anything that needs to be on the ballot, needs to be in Final Focus, and anything in final needs to be in summary.
2. The first speaking team should be predicting the offense in first summary that needs to be responded to, and putting defense on it then. This ALSO means that the second speaking team has to frontline in the rebuttal. Any arguments/defense that are not in the First Summary are dropped, and any arguments that are not frontlined in the second rebuttal are dropped.
3. Summary to Final Focus consistency is key, especially in terms of the relevance of arguments, if something is going to be a huge deal, it should be so in both speeches.
4. I will call for cards that I think are important, and I will throw them out if they are bad or misrepresented, regardless of if they are challenged in the round. sometimes when two arguments are clashing with little to no analysis, this is the only way to settle it.
Speed is fine, I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link.
I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm semi-skeptical of how often that really is.
Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.
You should also probably pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!