I debated 4 years in policy and pf at Saratoga High School

*I won't vote for an argument that doesn't have a warrant

*If it's important it should be in every speech (including key defense)

*Speed is fine, but slow down for taglines and citations. Don't use it exclude other debaters.

Theory

Threshold for theory is high, I'll vote on it if the abuse is egregious. Default to competing interps, no RVI, drop the arg (unless justified otherwise)

K

I like arguments that lean into K's and are debated like a K. I think these types of arguments are better than traditional Kritiks for PF, but I will still evaluate a K if you read it in round and know exactly what you are doing.

Evidence

I prefer debaters read cards in the constructive. Paraphrasing often leads to misconstruing - I will call for cards at the end if no warrants are given

Background:

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University and I've coached for a variety of camps and schools over the past couple of years. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. This also means full extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure it's comparative, not just general reasons your argument matters. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I think the best teams go deeper with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

- Frontlining in the second rebuttal. I don't think you need to do a full 2-2 split in the second rebuttal but you are obligated to respond to any new offense brought up in the first rebuttal. I definitely think it is strategic to frontline the argument you are going for.

- Extensions of defense. Every back-half speech is obligated to respond to your opponents' case and with a three-minute summary, this is certainly doable.

- Jokes. Making me laugh gives you a nice bump in speaks, just don't try to be funny if you're not.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred slower debate. Along the same lines, I have never been a fan of really blippy rebuttals where you read a lot of random cards.

- New offense in the second rebuttal. I am not a fan of new offense being read in rebuttal as an overview (weighing overviews are nice though). I think turns are great, but if you're speaking second in the round, I require that you weigh any turns that you read. This is specifically to encourage you to not read a bunch of blippy turns in second rebuttal. I think it is strategic for the first rebuttal to weigh their turns as well, but I don't require it.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). If you think something abusive happens, call it out. In general though, I don't have a lot of experience with critical argumentation and those types of debates will probably naturally end up with you getting a) a worse decision and b) less educational value from me as a judge.

- Tabletotes. They honestly just look silly and are a pretty weird flex.

General Stuff

I don't really understand K and Theory but if you warrant it and you convince me you get my ballot.

Warrant your weighing / evidence comparison

Don't need an off time roadmap, just tell me where you're starting.

If you miss something your opponent read in their case while flowing if they were going too fast or were unclear at some point, I encourage you to ask to see their case during prep time / crossfire.

Flow Stuff

Extensions need a warrant and an impact.

Second Rebuttal should respond to all offense, including turns from first rebuttal. If the second rebuttal misses a turn from first rebuttal, that turn is conceded, and the only thing the second speaking team can do is outweigh the turn if it is extended in the first summary.

Second Summary should have defense. I got you first summary don't worry about it UNLESS the other team is trying to frontline everything in rebuttal, then your first summary should have defense.

Revised April 11, 2018

Sandy Berkowitz

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

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

Public Forum

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

General issues

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

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

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

Evidence Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic issues

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

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

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

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

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

Delivery and Decorum

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

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

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

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

World Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy and LD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigm:

I debated for 5 years so I can handle tech speed etc. Personally, I've never found paradigms very useful. My best advice would be to just debate the way you're most accustomed to and you'll probably be most likely to win by ballot anyway. But, if you want the specifics of my preferences, read below:

Things I like:

1. logical analysis
1. smart analytics + evidence always beat evidence. blipping a bunch of evidence is not very strategic / convincing.
2. Front-lining in second rebuttal
1. Given the new summary times, it would make 1st FF basically impossible if you waited until 2nd Summary to do all of your frontlines for 3 min. I can't force you to frontline in 2nd rebuttal but frontlines you wait longer to make will be given less weight, and I will have a lower bar for what counts as a good response in the 1FF
3. Weighing
1. You do don't need to rely on buzzwords like "probability" and "timeframe" just make sure to spend time directly comparing offense

Things I don’t like:

1. New contentions read in 2nd rebuttal
1. They’re abusive, given that summary is only 2 min. They’re also usually fairly bad arguments but only strategic because they’re tough to respond to so late. These are usually disguised as “offensive overviews” or “Disads”. I will be very hesitant to vote on these.
2. This also means if you read a tiny turn in 2nd rebuttal and blow it up in 2nd FF I will be much less inclined to vote on it.
2. Theory / K / progressive arguments
1. I will evaluate them, but I have a low bar for what counts as a good response to these arguments. Also I never properly learned about these arguments so if the round devolves into a theory round I’ll (probably) make a bad decision.
3. Over-competitiveness
1. A kind of vague category which includes things like trying to reexplain arguments to me as you hand me evidence, being rude in CX, or stealing prep time while you call for cards.

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

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.

PF Debater for Coronado 2014-2018. Nevada State Champ 2018 (pf and duo), competed at gold TOC (pf), Top 50 at nats (pf). rock and roll

General Things:

- Speed's cool. Just make sure that when you're extending things you extend the argument and not just the author name.

- The final focus must mirror the summary and arguments must clearly extended.

-Tech over truth

- Try to establish a way to weigh the round early on.

- Second rebuttal doesn't HAVE to go back and defend case.

-Sure evidence is important but like don't be annoying about it. Do good warranting.

-Great signposting = great speaks ... duh

Progressive Argumentation (good stuff)

- I'm fine with any type of argument you want to run.

- Cool it with the plans and cp's. If you're gonna try get fiat you have to show probability.

What's Crackin' Guys!

I competed in Public Forum for 3 years on the NaTiOnAl CiRcUiT for Durham Academy (😤😤😤)

He/Him/His Pronouns

General

- Running obscure arguments on your opponents might seem like a nice euro step, but showing probability and a clear link chain will really slam the argument home

- Second rebuttal needs to address turns from first rebuttal, otherwise as k dot said "your rebuttal a little too late."

- First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless you think its absolutely necessary for whatever reason.

- You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot.

- Citing rap lyrics in round and being funny is the dopest thing you can do to make me like you.

- If you are losing badly and you know it, up the ante on the rap lyrics.

- If you are racist, ableist, sexist, make jokes about someone's momma, etc you will get a 20 L.

Speed

- In terms of speed if your flow and delivery is hot and clear I'm writing it down. For a good representation of what I want to see watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8 from 1:10-1:40.

- Remember to always signpost but NO GANG SIGNS

Evidence Ethics

-Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

- If you are ghost writing evidence I'm calling Meek to deliver the L himself.

#WORLDSTAR

- If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and you're partner each get 1.0 added to your speaks. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get deducted 0.1 speaks for interrupting cross.

- I will be updating my paradigm as the year progresses to track all the #WORLDSTAR moments in rounds below:

***UPDATED AFTER ROUND 4 OF MINNEAPPLE****

I have not heard a sufficient number of #WORLDSTAR moments in rounds, thus I am implementing a speaker ceiling effective round 5. If I do not hear ANY (either good or bad) #WORLDSTAR moments the highest speaks you will be eligible to receive is a 28*.

*JK, but please entertain me

NFA LD

I competed in LD for four years. So, I have a great deal of familiarity with the format and arguments. With that being said, my involvement with debate since graduating in 2015 has been pretty sparse. This means that I’m ok with speed, enjoy critical debate, and can evaluate most arguments, however I’d stay away from topic-specific jargon in front of me.

Topicality

I do not require proven abuse on topicality. I generally believe topicality to be jurisdictional. In other words, I have been asked to answer a question, “Should we pass the resolution or not?” If the affirmative is deemed to be non-topical, it means that they have not given me a reason to pass the resolution (the only question I have the power to answer), thus I cannot affirm. When evaluating T, I usually default to competing interpretations, whichever interp is better is the one I’ll use to evaluate the affirmative. I generally do not find reasonability to be a persuasive argument but eh, do you. On the flip side, I’m unlikely to simply gut-check an affirmative.

Potentially important to note - T is not a voting issue for the affirmative. I’m pretty unlikely to vote on an RVI

Questions of Abuse/Specification Arguments

My threshold for these arguments is pretty high. But, I think they can be persuasive in two contexts. First, if they are applied to the solvency debate ie. there is no enforcement mechanism which will make it impossible for the aff to solve. Second, if there’s proven abuse in round. Proven abuse obviously makes these arguments more persuasive, but it’s not a silver bullet either.

K’s

I generally enjoy listening to K’s that are well thought out. I’m not usually a huge fan of generic K’s but that certainly doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to vote for them. It is usually easier to vote for a K when I understand the alternative and exactly why the Aff would not fit into it.

CP’s

I think counter-plans can be conditional and the negative can always default back to defending the status quo. I also think counter-plans can be topical (but, that’s in the rules now). When a counter-plan is introduced, I view my job as evaluating the benefits between two proposed paths forward and determining which might be the most beneficial.

Cross-X

I suppose CX is binding if y’all say it is. I’m not flowing so please make sure anything important from that period makes it into a speech.

Random things:

Slowing down on tags is always a good thing.

I flow authors so feel free to extend with author names.

Even if you’re winning everything, it’s never a good idea to go for everything

Public Forum

Hey, I have been involved in debate in some capacity for the last ten years. I competed in Public Forum for 4 years. I then competed for 4 years in collegiate LD (one person policy) at Western Kentucky University. For the past two years, I've coached high school policy and high school public forum.

Questions before the round: Asking me about my experience with debate or my general paradigm are not good questions to ask me or any other judge. Have specific questions or refrain from asking any.

Speed: I can keep up with you but speed shouldn't be used as an exclusionary tool. If you are in a round with me where your opponent is speaking too quickly, say something. If your opponent has indicated that speed has impacted their ability to compete, I expect you to make changes or your speaker points will be severely reduced.

Pre-Flowing: This should be done BEFORE the round. You know your arguments prior to the round so you should be able to pre-flow them. It will make me extremely upset if you waste time at the start of the round (especially when we are running late or on a tight schedule)

Cross X: Cross X should mainly be used to clarify arguments and get concessions. I am not flowing. Anything that you think is needed to inform my argument should be extended on the right argument in a later speech. Blatant rudeness in CX shouldn't be a thing and will result in a drastic reduction in your speaker points. General assertiveness is totally ok and even encouraged.

Theory: Theory arguments generally don't have a place in Public Forum. That is different in other debate events. However, for theory arguments that aren't topicality, usually proven abuse is necessary to win. I am willing to hear arguments about what the other team justifies but they should be well warranted.

Summary to Final Focus: Anything you would like to be a part of the final focus should be in the summary. That includes defense. It's pretty abusive for you not to extend things, force your opponent to respond based on every possible scenario, and then go for a single warrant/argument.

When the timer goes off, I stop flowing. If you are still talking, it will not be adjudicated in the round.

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

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

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

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

Have fun!

Weigh or else I will be sad :(

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

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com. Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org. Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Philosophy

Name: Kate Hamm

School Affiliation: Ransom Everglades

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10+

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: X

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 34

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: X

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? All events

What is your current occupation? I am a high school teacher and head coach.

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

Speed of Delivery: Debate may be crisply delivered, but I am not a fan of the ‘spread’ in PF. If you need to spread – switch events. Can I flow the spread? Sure, I just don’t want to in PF. If the round comes down to two well matched teams, the team that has better, more persuasive arguments will beat the spread every time.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Summary speech should begin the narrowing process of the debate. The debate should be narrowed into the key arguments. I don’t want to hear a line by line of 16 minutes of argumentation spewed into a 2 minute speech!!!

Role of the Final Focus: The role of the final focus it to weigh the impacts of the arguments that were narrowed in the debate and persuade me as to why one side won and the other side did not.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: If the refutation (rebuttal speech) does not attack an argument presented in their opponent’s case, their summary may not try to do so. If the summary speaker leaves an argument out of the debate, their partner may not bring it up in the final focus. If arguments from the Constructive case are not extended by the summary, nor mentioned in the debate after the constructive case, please DO NOT try to impact them in the Final Focus.

Topicality: Really? This is an issue in PF only if a team tries an abusive definition. I do not want to hear a theory debate.

Plans : Some resolutions are policies…

Kritiks: Oh Hell No. Not in PF.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow… a lot.

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

I generally judge on the arguments and score points on style… therefore, I do give low point wins.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? The rebuttal speech in PF should refute the opponent’s arguments; they may rebut their own, if time. But that is not mandatory for me. It is mandatory, however, that the summary speaker narrow the debate to the arguments that stay in the debate. The final focus may not extend a case argument if their own summary speaker dropped it.

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

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Absolutely NOT!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

I love debate… I reward (with speaker points) students who elevate debate into a fine art. I do not reward (with points) those who make it into a short form policy event or a two person LD circuit circus. If two teams are giving me a spew fest of spread crap, the team who wins the flow will win the debate, but neither team will win high speaker points!

First and foremost this activity is one of communication. If you aren’t communicating… find a different activity.

https://gph.is/2HThgly

I am an assistant coach at The Potomac School, and previously was the Director of Forensics at Des Moines Roosevelt. If you have any questions about Public Forum, Extemp, Congress, or Interp events, come chat! Otherwise you can feel free to email me at: quentinmaxwellh@gmail.com for any questions about events, the activity, or rounds I've judged.

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, Public Forum is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

Current Position -- I have been the head debate coach at Lincoln Southwest High School for the past 20 years. In that time I have coached and judged PF, LD and congressional debate.

Background -- I have been coaching speech and debate for the last 28 years. I have been coaching pubic forum since its inception 20 years ago. I was a high school and college competitor in speech and competed in LD in high school.

PF Paradigm --

1. I believe that PF is a communication event with special emphasis on the narrative quality of the arguments. The story is important to me. Blippy argumentation or incessant reading of cards with no analysis or link back to the resolution does not hold much weight in my decision. Do the work in round -- do not make me intervene.

2. Weighing mechanisms should be fully explained -- if you want me to vote using your weighing mechanism, it is your duty to actually tell me why it is a good mechanism for the round and how your side/case/argument does a better job achieving the mechanism.

3. Presentation of arguments should be clear. I am not a fan of unbridled speed in this event. You need to speak clearly with a persuasive tone.

4. Reading cards > paraphrasing cards

5. If you must ask for cards or if you are asked for cards, you need to be prepared to ask for and present these cards in an efficient manner.

6. Don’t be rude.

Strake Jesuit '18

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email: pierce.hollier@duke.edu

Important update/note: I am putting this up here because I don't want to go through I find all the places that I've talked about it in the text below. I am not going to enforce disclosure/speech docs in any win/loss way. It will only serve to increase your speaks

Feel free to ask me if there is any uncertainty about what parts apply and don't. If you read a turn in first rebuttal and the second rebuttal drops it, the first summary still needs to extend it. I don't require the first summary to extend defense that isnt frontlined but I do require all offense in the summary. If the first summary drops a nonfrontlined turn and then they bring it up in first final focus the most I give is terminal defense on the argument, you no longer get offense since you dropped it summary.

PF Paradigm (a lot of this is copied from my partner's (Daniel Wang) paradigm):

-I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, qualified to TFA state 3 years and finished in semis senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year.

-Please be pre-flowed prior to the round.

-If you have 5 minutes before a round and failed to read my entire paradigm, here is the short version (even though you should have read the whole thing since I'm not including many specifics in here that are important):

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism or sexism good. Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me or make me think that you're not good at debate. Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I am truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level. (Read Below)

On disclosure theory: Winning AT: Ask Me or AT: I'll Email it is incredibly easy in front of me. There's probably a norm-setting argument that you can win incredibly easily if they refuse to disclose on wiki but say they'll email you, etc. If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp.

B. Conceded arguments are 100% true. There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Also, the implication needs to be there at some point or else I will make it up for you.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important. I would prefer you send (or disclose) cases, and all evidence in later speeches to me via an e-mail chain. Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. Speaker points are also affected by this. Read below for more details. You always should disclosed. Read below. Disclosure will get you better speaks.

D. Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it. Defense does not need to be in 1st summary if dropped, but the implication does need to be there (by the final focus) at some point or else I will make it up for you.

Also, please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred. You can start doing more big picture in Final Focus but make sure you're still winning on the technical level because I don't care about persuasion.

E. Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there is minimal abuse. You should be aware that my threshold for responses to really friv theory probably gets lower as the theory gets more friv.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are not arguments.

G. There are a lot of different ways to extend evidence. You can say concession of x or you've conceded x. You don't have to say extend each time. That gets way too repetitive but if you want, I don't care.

H. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

I. 2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!!!!!! Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in summary, GG.

J. If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker point because calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them. It's also really obvious that some teams do it to mess with their opponents.

K. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep when you stand up or while waiting for evidence exchanges. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. [Exception for TOC due to rules]. Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks.

L. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it. This is a time when I would be ok with what most people would call intervention.

However, you should probably read the whole paradigm because most of it is important. Also, I understand this paradigm is probably really long. Also, as a debater I liked very long and detailed paradigms so I decided to do this.

General Stuff:

-I don't care what you wear (within reason of course) and judges that do are messed up. If you want to take off your coat and tie, I don't care. I did that a bunch when I debated.

-All concessions of opposing arguments i.e. de-links must occur in the immediate speech after where they were introduced. For example, if someone reads 5 impact turns and then a de-link in the first rebuttal, you must explicitly concede that de-link in the second rebuttal. If you don't and then they extend the impact turns, you cannot come up in 2nd summary and then concede the de-link. If you do, I just won't flow it since that's incredibly abusive to force them to extend offense and then for you to kick it after they already extended offense on the argument.

However, there are a few hard rules that are part of debate.

1. Speech times are set.

2. Prep Time is set (2 minutes typically, even though that's an absurdly short amount of time)

3. I vote for one team and one team only.

4. Evidence needs author last name/year.

Anything else is alright. I'm not going to hurt you for not reading quals. However, if someone challenges the quals or cred of the author (which I think is usually a really bad argument) then have them on hand.

IMPORTANT!!!!! READ BELOW:

I believe that defense does not need to be extended if it is conceded following my paradigm of conceded arguments being true. However, if they frontline it, then you need to contest it. If they never address defense, there's no need to extend it. However, the implication needs to be there at some point i.e. terminal defense, alt-cause, etc. It can be brought up as late as you want as long as the defense isn't contested. However, this does not mean I want teams reading 50 crappy blocks/"arguments" against the other team. All arguments need to have a warrant and implication. If there isn't one, I probably won't evaluate it.

-If I am on a panel, obviously adapt to the other judges and I will gladly follow what you do because I understand that my paradigm differs from the "community norm."

HOWEVER, read the below section because it is pretty important:

Disclosure (Very Important):

Pre-Round Disclosure:

-The coin flip should happen about 15 minutes before the round (25-30 minutes for flight 2). I'm not really going to be able to enforce this, I just don't want you delaying the round because of it. I put this in because I just think it's good for the education and helps disclosure. I understand that it could be hard to find your opponents amongst the huge crowd of debaters. That being said, refusing to flip for no good reason will make me sad. This is a sad trend that we are seeing in which teams don't flip until literally 30 seconds before the round starts. That kills all pre-round prep advantage and time. The affirmative should tell the negative what the aff is before the debate, unless it is a new aff. If it is a new aff, the affirmative does not have to tell the negative what the aff is/what the advantages are/what the advocacy text is/anything. All they need to say is "new aff." If it is a new plan but the same advantages, the aff should disclose the advantages being read, but does not have to disclose the plan. Same is true of new advantages. If you swap out a few cards but it's the same advantage, the AFF should say same advantage with new cards. Changing a few cards does not mean it's a new AFF. Since this is PF, you should also tell your opponents what the neg is before the debate, the same rules still apply.

-If you lie about what will be read to your opponents and they can prove it, I will really lower your speaks and maybe down you depending on what happened. Please don't make me evaluate this kind of thing.

-If the other team can prove to me that they asked to flip and you refused to do so, I will dock your speaker points for the round. If they can prove that they asked for what AFF/NEG and you didn't tell them, I'll also be sad. Also anyone can make theory arguments out of these scenarios.

-If you are at a circuit tournament and they pointed out that you haven't disclosed and tell me why that's a bad thing, I'm sorry but there's not much you can do after that. I lean truth>tech on the disclosure debate. You need to win tech > truth first in you want to go that route on disclosure theory. However, you should meet your interpretation.

-One exception: If you read disclosure against a team that are clearly novices, I will still vote you up, but don't be excited about your speaker points.

NDCA Wiki Disclosure:

-Teams SHOULD disclose all broken positions on the NDCA PF Wiki. I think most arguments against disclosure are pretty silly, and don't worry too much about whether or not the violation can be verified. I will check their wiki for you. To encourage disclosure I will make it so that your speaker points can be altered by you disclosing.

-I start everyone around a 27.0. Basically, the highest speaks you're getting by not disclosing is a 28.9-29.4 (assuming you are absolutely perfect). However, if you do disclose, I will give you a 1 point bonus.

-Also, if your case is paraphrased, you don't have cards to disclose. Therefore, paraphrased stuff does not count as disclosure and don't try disclosing paraphrased cases cause I don't know how you can do it. Copying and pasting your case without citations is absurd/awful. There's no way for other people to check your evidence and see the validity of it since most of it is probably power-tagged. If you read paraphrased cases, you have to disclose the cut cards properly as if you're reading a case with cut cards in it and make the paraphrasing the tag of the card or somewhat similar.

Evidence Ethics:

-I am strong believer in cut cards. I believe that paraphrasing is ok... (not really) but since it is a norm so deeply rooted in PF, it probably won't change. However, I believe strongly in arguments against paraphrasing. I am fine with paraphrasing bad theory and am willing to vote on it. MAKE SURE YOU DEFINE PARAPHRASING IN A FINE WAY THAT EXCLUDES CUT CARDS. READ A DEFINITION. Otherwise, you are probably not going to win this theory debate despite me wanting to vote on it. Don't make me sad!! Also, please frontline the common but not true responses to paraphrasing good.

-Also, if you see below, if you paraphrase evidence, you will lose out on a speaker point bonus. Bottom line: Cut Cards. It's not that hard to cut cards. Also, you need cut cards to be able to disclose on the wiki. As I say somewhere else in my paradigm, it is absurd to be able to read 25 pieces of evidence in the case.

-I am extremely pissed off at teams who misconstrue evidence and then proceed to win because of that evidence. Thus, I am going to take a hardline stance against that. If I see that you misconstrued evidence beyond what I JUDGE TO BE a honest mistake or lack of knowledge of statistics, I will give you no higher than a 25 and possibly a big L and report you to tab if it is bad enough or it happens too many times. One big thing is that one standard deviation is not 1%.

-Also, I would prefer teams to start an email chain with your case w/ the cut cards or at least hyperlinks and send it to: pierce.hollier@duke.edu. Make the subject: "Round -- Tournament Round Number -- Aff Code vs Neg Code"

-This means send every speech doc for the round to me so I can make sure you aren't miscutting or clipping cards. Prep time stops when you are done editing the doc. Emailing doesn't count. However, if you are taking a long time, I will start your prep time again, If I am suspecting that you are stealing prep, your speaks will get hurt. Emailing should take around 30-40 seconds at max. If you can't go to your email, drag the speech doc and hit send, you're doing something else and that means that you are stealing prep.

-If you don't know how to make a speech doc, learn how to make one. Verbatim is a great tool for debate and it's 2018. Teams should be able to go paperless by now (in terms of evidence). If you have a student email you can get Microsoft Word for free by just creating an Office 365 account with that email.

-All evidence should be sent to me since this event's evidence ethics are awful.

-If you misrepresent cards, miscut, or clip, I am willing to give you a L<20. I will intervene in this situation. If you read cut cards for your rebuttal instead of paraphrasing, I will give you and your partner a speak reward for good norms.

-If you can't find the evidence within a couple minutes, your speaks are getting a little bump down and that evidence is getting dropped. You should always cut cards before you paraphrase so they should be available but if you read cut cards you won’t have this problem.

Speaker Points:

-I give speaker points based on strategy. Clarity also matters, but is an extremely marginal factor in deciding what speaker points I give you. I do not care about persuasion. It's about what you say in round. You can speak pretty but be extremely bad on the flow and I will not hesitate to give a 27.7 out.

-I'll call clear/slow 3 times before I start deducting points. Strategy > Clarity. First, I start everyone around a 27. If you do disclose, I will reward you with a bonus by starting at a 28.0 and move up and down from there on increments of 0.1 based on strategy/argumentation. If you read cut cards in your case and disclose, I will generally like you more. Basically, read cut cards if you want higher speaks. It's absurd how people can hint at 40 authors in one case because you can somehow paraphrase the article in one sentence.

-If you're in the bubble round, I will probably be more generous with speaker points since I know how much it sucks to be 4-2 or 5-2 and not break. Humor and roasting your opponents to a certain extent will boost your speaks.

-If you say "I'm sorry [insert name of opponents], but you're going to lose. I'm going to finals" -[TFA State 2017 LD Semifinals] before your final speech and then you win, I will probably reward you. If you lose, no punishment. You'll just be embarrassed for saying that and your opponents can laugh at you.

I will boost your speaks if you do any of the following well:

A) Utilizing a daring strategy i.e. kicking case and going for turns, etc. Going for 2/4 minutes on the RVI against theory or T. Going for one link turn and weighing the crap out of it.

B) Turning the case for 4 minutes in the 2nd constructive and 4 more minutes in the rebuttal and actually doing it well.

C) Weighing in rebuttal/case and telling me the implication of each argument or doing stuff that falls under the "util" section of my paradigm.

Speed:

-If you know me, you probably know I preferred faster debate. This means that I am fine with speed. HOWEVER, DO NOT SPEED UP/SPREAD IF YOU CAN'T!!! I will deduct speaks for doing so. Slow down on tags and author names!! If you don't slow for those things you're gonna have a bad time.

-Also if you spread, you must be reading cut cards in the tag, cite, card format. If you're paraphrasing and you spread A. I'll miss your author name and B. Usually there's no distinction between cards since you won't be reading tags and I’ll miss a bunch of random stuff. So maybe you shouldn't paraphrase.

-I will say "clear" or "slow" 3 times before I start deducting speaks.

-Also please slow down on analytics or else I might not catch everything you say. If you blaze through a theory dump and get 5 points out in 10 seconds, I'm definitely going to miss stuff.

-Delineate between tags and the card. As you move on from a card to an analytic, just be clear. When you move from a card to a new tag, say "aannnd" The only oral citation that you need is the author last name/year. So like Smith 17. Institution and author credentials aren't necessary, but can help you with evidence comparison.

-If you spread, please give your opponent's your speech doc either by email, flashdrive, pass pages, or a viewing computer.

-Please signpost!!!! If you don't, I will be very very sad and probably miss a lot of your arguments/be delayed by 3-5 seconds, so don't be mad if you were blazing through your arguments at 400WPM and didn't signpost.

Generics:

-I am tab which means I will buy almost any argument (yes this includes nuclear war (Danny and I won pretty much all of our Septober 17 rounds on this)) if it is warranted correctly. I also will not intervene. You need to make all of the analysis. However, if a link turn is straight-up conceded your extensions of the impacts can be blippy (but if you don't weigh them after extension your opponent could still win). Don't double turn yourself. In addition, my threshold for extensions is pretty low if it's actually conceded. If they concede a contention for example, take 10 seconds to extend the whole contention.

-Also, I will not vote on offensive arguments. Death good is fine, but racism good is probably not. However, you do the weighing and meta-weighing for all other arguments.

-TLDR: Tech > Truth (except disclosure). Conceded arguments are 100% true. Make arguments for why some weighing mechanism should come first. However, I am willing to assign 0-risk to something meaning that magnitude doesn't matter. Also, 0-risk means no risk of offense. Strength of link weighing is probably the best way to get my ballot. If something is conceded, I give it 100% strength of link and conceded arguments are true.

-My philosophy is pretty simple: I will take the least interventionist approach to judging debates. However, I will intervene if what you say is blatantly wrong i.e. the United States is in Europe, etc. Please make some jokes. Keep them somewhat appropriate. I am willing to reward humor.

-I also will not intervene to clear up a muddled argument if nobody does any of the stuff I want that falls under the "util" section in my paradigm. In the case where the round is way too muddled, presumption flows neg if neg defends squo. Otherwise, if neg reads a CP or defends some alternate world, presumption flows aff. I can be persuaded otherwise, just justify your arguments for why. The above is just a default in the event that nobody makes a single argument about presumption.

RFDs:

-If the tournament allows it, I will disclose and provide an oral RFD with speaker points included. If you want to grill me, that's fine, but wait until after I am done giving my RFD. However, if your coach wants to grill me, I will be willing to answer questions ONLY if they watched and flowed the round. Other than that, don't attempt to get your coach to bully me into changing my decision and voting for you. If I am on a panel and at the bottom of a decision, please wait until the other judges are finished before asking questions. If the tournament doesn’t allow for disclosure, then either FB message me or find me somewhere after the round and I’ll disclose/give you a RFD.

-I'm not big on disclosing speaks but I'll do it if everybody wants me to.

Flex Prep:

-Flex prep is fine. If you want a concession for a violation before the NC, go for it. If your opponent is being dodgy in prep, just give up and just know that I dislike people who do that in an attempt to waste prep time.

Overviews:

-Overviews are great. However, overviews are not places where you read evidence/read contention add-ons, etc. Overviews are just telling me whats important and how the round breaks down. If you decide to read basically a new contention as an overview, I will be extremely angry at you and be inclined to drop your speaks. I will still evaluate it ONLY IF YOU READ IT IN FIRST REBUTTAL, NOT THE SECOND. Even then, I'll be unhappy with you. You have a 4 minute case for a reason.

Specific Arguments and Preferences:

Fiat:

-If the topic is a policy implementation topic, the policy is enacted the second you begin reading the first words of the 1AC. This means you can't spec out of Elections DAs or Politics DAs. I believe in massive fiat power i.e. the affirmative can literally spec what the USFG should do with the money or anything. Probability doesn't matter, but you should read a solvency advocate. However, theory arguments can also be read against this strategy so just be aware. "PF doesn't have fiat" is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

-I also default durable fiat meaning that rollback arguments don't apply to the AFF. This is just a default. If you can justify why I should give the AFF durable fiat or vice versa, I am willing to listen to your arguments and make a decision or evaluate the round based on those arguments.

Util Debate:

-I love good util debate. "Good" is the key term, meaning that you should be doing great evidence comparison, impact weighing, link comparison, strength of link weighing, etc. Evidence comparison in LARP debates are your best friend.

-Also, don't throw jargon out there for the sake of it. Doing the above things will earn you extra speaker points especially when it comes to evidence comparison. Also, being proficient at these skills will go a long way in helping your debate success. This is something rarely seen in PF and is what separates good debaters from great debaters.

-Do a lot of line-by-line work here. Evidence quality also probably matters a lot. Make smart arguments on the line-by-line and you'll be happy.

-Case Debate is good. A lot of cases are missing internal links or their internal links are straight garbage. A 1N that recognizes this and takes out the internal links will make me happy. Also, turns are good here. A 2N that collapses to turns and explains/weighs them really well will probably impress me.

-Impact turn debates are great, but they usually get incredibly messy. If you decide to engage in an impact turn debate, make sure you do weighing and evidence comparison. Otherwise, impact turn debates become card wars without any comparison which makes it impossible to resolve.

-Impact Defense is also incredibly important. Good Impact D can bring probability of an adv down to 0% or close to 0% pretty quickly. If you go for a CP, you should still spend some time on case to make it easier.

-Blippy extensions are 100% fine if the argument is conceded. If they concede an advantage, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only decide to go for a link or impact turn, you can first spend 8-10 seconds extending that advantage and then proceed to frontline that turn. Obviously if there's a lot of link defense, frontline that and make sure you're doing a lot of good util debate to make the decision easier in your favor.

Underviews:

-I honestly believe that reading a few theoretical/paradigm issue spikes at the bottom of the case can be extremely strategic and give you a massive time advantage in the second half of the round. You can take out minutes of argument with one extension if you have good strategic vision. Just warrant your spikes and you're good.

Orders:

-Please try and refrain from using the term "off-time roadmap" some variant of that, it annoys me: Saying "I'm going to start on their case and come back to mine if time permits" is not the order. You need to tell me where you're starting, preferably on the card name in later speeches and specific contentions. Also, say THE ORDER will be... and BE SPECIFIC ON WHERE YOU'RE GOING. Literally tell me the exact part where you're starting and the specific part where you will proceed to i.e. starting on x card on adv. 1. then adv 2. then Elections DA or something. I get that the order might need to change during speech, if so, MAKE THAT CLEAR WITH SIGNPOSTING.

-Also, say "affirmative" and "negative," not "pro" and "con." Nobody pros a resolution, but you affirm it. Saying those things will just annoy me. I'm not gonna deduct speaks but it just annoys me.

Case:

-PLEASE actually find a card that states what you want it to say. I HATE teams who just make assumptions in case and say that doing x will obviously result in y. Logic is fine but in topics relating to foreign/domestic policy, cards are necessary. Some debaters think they are John Mearsheimer. They aren't. Also, make sure your case is actually well put together. Most cases have weak internal links or are straight up missing them. Seeing this as a debater and making the argument that they are missing an internal link or straight up taking the internal link out will go a long way in winning the round.

Generic Turns:

-Again, this is a strategy that is somewhat underutilized in PF. People have no idea how a 4 minute generic turn dump that can apply to any single affirmative case on a implementation topic can be so strategic. HOWEVER, if you just dump cards and the opponent tells me how they don't apply, that's a problem for you. Sometimes it is way more strategic to go 1OFF (read a DA or T or Theory) and then read a load of turns in the 1NC instead of a 4 minute NC. If you're doing this strategy, do weighing and give implications well as to the role that each turn plays i.e. turns case or a specific link.

Framework:

-You need to win offense under framework. Winning framework means nothing to me if you don't have any offense under it. I will filter all offense in the round through the winning framework. Strength of link weighing will definitely help you if you both have offense under the same framework. Frameworks need to be justified and warranted. Please never read a cost-benefit analysis framework as I default util.

-If you read an alternate framework, read below on phil. I'm also fine with tricky frameworks as long as you justify them. Also, if they read an alternate framework, in order to take it out, you need to put defense on their framework and you need to generate your own framework i.e. util. Otherwise, even if you just put defense on their FW there is still a marginal chance that it is true while you have no framework. Thus, if you are reading an alternate framework, you must read it in constructive otherwise it's incredibly abusive to bust out a new framework in second rebuttal and then force the summary to read new framework offense and put defense on your framework.

-Stuff like Memmi and other framing cards count as an alternate FW. That stuff needs to come in case. Also, Memmi is an awful card. Please read better framework evidence/justifications.

-Recontextualization of your FW to exclude certain arguments is iffy. If the implication was there early on and they just failed to respond, then I guess I'm fine with it. If it isn't there, then I guess it depends how much spin you put on it. If it's a super super unpredictable re-contextualization and you get called out, I'm probably not going to evaluate it.

TJFs:

-TJFs are fine and if you read theoretical justifications, I will instantly default to those as a higher standard than whatever your opponents read; however, the regular theory stuff kicks into play i.e. fairness vs. education, weighing, etc.

Theory:

-I am receptive to theory and have a pretty good understand of how it functions in round. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so.

-However, if theory is run poorly I will deduct speaker points. Also, please run theory in shell format if you don't know how to read good paragraph theory. I absolutely hate paragraph theory that is run poorly. If you want to see what good theory that isn't in shell format is, go watch the 2AC of NDT 2016 Semis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlNgb2dELmU

-Other than that, I will buy theory on almost anything i.e. condo bad, PICs bad, must read advocacy text, but I am also open to listening to the opposite side. You also need to make the arguments for voter weighing i.e. fairness and education.

-Make sure you do Strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's gonna be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded.

-I also REFUSE to gut-check theory. If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc. Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics i.e. defending all AMS on AFF on the SoKo topic.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-I will not default that fairness and education are voters. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. It really does. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs. These are not hard defaults and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments. For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess you're gonna have a bad time. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. Don't worry, I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a shell format. If you want to read T, please read it as a shell format as well as a TVA. If you don't, it just gets hard for me to evaluate and its going to get muddled. I'll try to evaluate but don't make me do that. You need standards/net benefits. Why is being non-T bad? Is there some prep skew, limits arg that you can make? Yes. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

TLDR: If you make topicality arguments against affirmatives without warranting why being non-T or questionably non-T is bad, I probably won't evaluate it. Also, if you read T, you need a definition and interp.

K's:

I'd prefer not. But if they are run correctly then I guess I'll vote on it if you win it. But look for another route to the ballot. I can evaluate them, but don't make me.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (probably going to be hard going for Substance>Theory but you can if you want)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

Philosophy:

-Minus an alternate framework, I default to util. However, I started to read a little bit of phil at the end of my junior year. I somewhat understand Kant, Hobbes, and other basic philosophy. If you want to take this approach, have good reasons why your framework comes first and give implications for how your FW controls the round. Please don't read high-theory (DnG, Baudrillard, etc.) as I have little understanding of them.

Plans and Counterplans.

-I believe that plans and counterplans do have a place in PF for most topics. I am not persuaded by NSDA rules because those rules should not exist in the first place. Do some actual topical research instead of writing your cases the night before because you were too lazy to do actual prep and then claim some rules that should not exist in the first place to help you win the round. The affirmative/negative did preparation beforehand, you should do it to. If you run T/theory on it properly, then I can be persuaded. Please make sure you read a plan-text for fiat power and slow down on the advocacy text.

-The advocacy text is binding i.e. you cannot kick out of a plank of the text. Also, please make sure your counterplans are actually mutually exclusive. Textual competition is fine. Make sure you win a net benefit to your CP though. PICs are fine and are probably extremely strategic in a lot of instances, but I am open to theory args against them.

-A permutation is a test of competition unless argued otherwise. Advocacies probably need a solvency advocate. PICs probably need to have a solvency advocate as close as possible to what you are actually advocating for. If they don't, I'll still evaluate it but it makes theory way more compelling.

DAs:

-I really don't understand why PF doesn't have more election/politics DAs in them since half the topics that we debate would probably massively influence the political climate in the United States i.e. abolishing the Electoral College would probably swing the next election.

-I'm fine with all types of DAs. However, the biggest problem with a lot of DAs is that the internal link is really weak or the internal link is completely missing, meaning that affirmatives with good strategic vision should capitalize on this and take out the internal link.

-You also need to weigh the DA i.e. DA turns case/outweighs case and give reasons why. Also, make sure uniqueness doesn't overwhelm the link and it's always good to have a link magnifier in the DA.

Rebuttal Offense-Style Overviews:

-I absolutely hate this style of debate. If you read this, be prepared to get your speaks docked. Also, I am extremely receptive to theory/spikes on this type of argumentation. A new contention/DA in the second summary is super abusive and will most likely get you downed in any other debate event and I will see that you are to in this decision as well if it justifies it. You're not being tricky, you're being stupid and your speaks will reflect that decision.

Speeches:

-I believe that defense does not need to be extended if it is conceded. However, if they frontline it, then you need to contest it. If they never address defense, there's no need to extend it. However, the implication needs to be there at some point i.e. terminal defense, alt-cause, etc. It can be brought up as late as you want as long as the defense isn't contested.

-I really prefer LINE-BY-LINE in every speech.

-I am fine with the 1NC reading off-case positions, i.e. case turns, DAs to the affirmative instead of a standard "NC."

Rebuttal:

-The second rebuttal does not have to respond to defense, but must address turns as it is offense and the 1st summary should extend it. Also, go line-by-line please. You should also be reading cards. If you read a new overview that is basically a new add-on for case in the second rebuttal or some other argument that doesn't function as turns or a round break-down, I will deduct speaker points.

Summary:

-Please go for 2-3 arguments AT MAX. PLEASE WEIGH!!!!!! If you don't, you may not like my decision because I may have to intervene. Weighing should probably start in summary.

-I believe that the second final focus does not get new weighing unless the weighing first came up in the first final focus and I can be persuaded by second summary gets no new weighing as well if you give justifications at some point before that, preferably in case or rebuttal. I need extensions with card names.

-Blippy extensions are 100% fine if the argument is conceded. The best way to clear up a muddled argument is to do a lot of the stuff that falls under the "Util" section above. Do not extend through ink!

-Also, I believe that the summary should definitely go line-by-line. This is how I always debated on the circuit and if you give a great LBL summary, I will boost your speaker points.

Final Focus:

-The final focus should be focused on very similar things to the summary speech. IF IT IS OFFENSE AND NOT IN THE SUMMARY, I WILL NOT EVALUATE IT. Try to refrain from making new implications unless it was something made in the second summary/ first final focus etc. Also as I stated above, the 2nd FF does not get new weighing as that is an argument and no new arguments will be permitted in the 2nd FF.

-Final Focus should probably start going more big picture, but you still need to ensure that you're ahead on the line-by-line. If you decide to go pure line-by-line, I am 100% fine with that and honestly probably prefer that since it makes everything easier to flow and later evaluate. Overviews here are great and make sure break down the round simply for me.

Hi! I competed in PF on the local Georgia circuit for 4 years and the national circuit for 2 years at Starr's Mill High School and go to GT.

*I will not vote for homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, or offensive arguments. If you run something bigoted or if you are racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc. - I will drop you.

*Do not interrupt unnecessarily in crossfire (this is especially true if you're a male debater in cross with a female opponent). Do not shake your head, make faces, mutter, etc. during your opponents' speeches (this is especially true if you're a male debater doing this to a female opponent). I hate this.

How to get my Ballot:

I do not want to intervene. Please weigh and do not extend through ink so I don't have to.

I like well warranted and well-weighed arguments. I will vote on arguments most heavily weighed (with good warrants) that still have offense left at the end of the round.

I won't vote for an argument if it isn't in Summary and FF.

Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal arguments/offense if the second speaking team is collapsing on those arguments. Defense doesn't have to be in first summary and Summary and FF should be mirrored.

Weighing:

This is one of the most important parts of the debate. I cannot and most likely will not vote for you if you do not tell me how to weigh your arguments. Warrant your weighing analysis.

Signposting

This is crucial. Signpost clearly and often. Tell me where to flow before your speeches in the latter half of the round.

Collapsing

If it isn't in the summary and it's in the FF I won't vote on it. When I was a novice I went for all my arguments. Don't. Pick one to two arguments you are winning on and go for those.

Evidence

From my experience debaters misrepresent evidence a lot. I want Author [Not Institution Only], Credentials (preferably, but not required), and Year. I will not tolerate cards that are cut incorrectly or misrepresented.

If you tell me to look at your opponent's evidence because you believe it is misrepresented- I will.

Speaker Points

Making puns and being witty while having a good debate will make you look good and have high speaks. You will have very low speaks if you are offensive, rude, and generally not conducive to a good debate.

Feel free to ask me about anything before/after round. I will disclose if the tournament allows me to. If you have any questions feel free to email me at <holt.tylerjames@gmail.com> or message me on FB.

I debated for four years in PF on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough and coached PF at Bronx Science.

General:

- Second rebuttal should preferably respond to new offense/turns from first rebuttal

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense unless second rebuttal frontlined it. In that case, first summary should extend defense on the relevant parts of the flow

Things I Like:

- Summary and the final focus consistency. This means proper extension of arguments (i.e. warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure your weighing is comparative (ex: strength of link, clarity of impact, etc) in relation to your opponents' arguments rather than just a bunch of pre-written reasons why your impact matters.

On theory/progressive argumentation:

I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (i.e. read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round) because of PF's speech structure. That being said, if someone says something problematic or does something unfair, definitely call them out for it. Feel free to try to amend my views on debate, just do so knowing that I'm not incredibly versed on progressive argumentation. If you do read progressive arguments in front of me, tell me exactly how they function within the round and should influence my ballot.

Finally, if you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.

I debated for Stuyvesant with moderate success and currently attend Princeton. I do collegiate debate (parli) but I do not coach high school pf. That means I have very little knowledge about the topic.

General Preferences

All offense that is in FF must be in summary.

Second rebuttal does not need to address turns. First summary does not need to extend defense unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal.

Bring up cx concessions in a speech for me to evaluate them.

No need to disclose.

I do not like non-traditional arguments (theory, the K). I believe they are ripping apart the activity that I love. If those types of arguments are your thing, strike me.

I will, 99% of the time, evaluate the round based off util. It will take a lot of convincing for me to do otherwise.

Will call for evidence if:

1. It was hotly contested / a team asks me to

2. It is crucial for one side's offense and it sounds very sketchy

The best way to win my ballot is to weigh. I shall resolve weighing/framework first, and then resolve clash regarding the offense that links into that framework. If neither side weighs, I shall have to do it myself, with potentially unsatisfying results for both teams.

I will reward teams that adopt a strong narrative and collapse effectively, as opposed to blippy responses and going for too much. I value clear warrant stories with small impacts much more than big impacts without well-explained links.

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

Have fun, and best of luck!

I competed in PF for four years for Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, both on the national and local circuits. I coached at NDF in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and for the 2020-21 season I'm an Assistant PF Coach at Eagan High School. I'm now a junior at the University of Notre Dame studying political science.

Don't be afraid to ask me questions about anything on here - I love answering them, and it shows me that you're making a serious effort to adapt to me, which I appreciate!

Add me to the email chain - ellie.konfrst@gmail.com.

How to win my ballot:

Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. This is probably the most important thing in my paradigm. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddy and don't get sorted out, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than a case arg riddled with ink and conflicting warranting.

You need to collapse in the second half of the round, it's a huge strategic mistake not to do that.

Use the persuasive nature of PF to your advantage. I evaluate the round off the flow, but that doesn't mean I'm not a human and can't be persuaded. Ultimately, your job is to convince me you're right. In close rounds, sometimes that's less logical and more emotional.

In the spirit of persuasion, you should be collapsing on a clear narrative in the second half of the round.

You have to weigh. If you don't weigh for me I'm forced to literally just pick things I think are more important, which means you lose control of the round, and I'm forced to interfere. Weighing should be clear in summary and final focus, and it might even be helpful to start weighing in rebuttal. (NOTE: In order to weigh your argument, you also have to win the argument. I've seen way too many teams weigh arguments that they lose, and that leaves me forced to intervene just as much as if you don't weigh. Remember, you need to extend warrants and impacts).

Extensions:

If you want it on the ballot, it needs to be in summary AND final focus.

Extend warrants and impacts. Make a point to especially extend impacts - I have literally no reason to vote for your argument if there's no impact, and failing to extend impacts in final focus can be fatal.

Defense you need to win needs to be extended in first summary. Especially with 3 minutes for summary, y'all - if you expect defense to be sticky from rebuttal to final focus you are not debating well.

You need to respond to your opponent's rebuttal if you're speaking 2nd. I prefer defense and offense, but I'm significantly more forgiving with dropped defense than dropped offense. If you speak second and you drop a turn read in first rebuttal, I consider it dropped for the round. With that said, please do not "extend" your case in 1st rebuttal, I will probably just stop listening.

Extend card names along with what the card says.

Conduct:

I know debate rounds can get heated, but I think it's important to respect your opponents. If you're unnecessarily aggressive, patronizing, or rude, I'll definitely dock your speaks. I'm not telling you to not be assertive or loud, but I can tell the difference between someone who believes their opponents are wrong and someone who believes their opponents are not even worth their time.

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. I'll drop you and tank your speaks.

This is a small thing, but I really dislike when teams call out strategic errors made by the other time in cross, i.e. "didn't you drop this in summary?" It's a waste of cross-ex time and it feels rude to me - tell me in a speech, don't turn it into a cross question.

Arguments:

I like interesting arguments a lot! Obviously squirrely/unwarranted args probably won't win you my ballot, but judging 6 double-flighted debate rounds in a row can get super monotonous, and I'll probably reward you if you at least make the round more interesting.

I'm open to any type of impacts, as long as you weigh them.

However, I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory/Ks/pre-fiat arguments you're gonna need to explain them to me in the simplest possible terms. To be clear, I have rarely encountered any kind of shell when debating or judging, and only rarely encountered ROB args as a debater. I am pretty uncomfortable evaluating these arguments and while I'll evaluate them as best I can, you run them at your own risk.

Framework:

I will evaluate under whatever framework is presented to me in the round.

That means, if you drop your opponent's framework, I will weigh the round based on that.

I'm super hesitant to use framework brought up in 2nd rebuttal, especially if it fundamentally alters the way I need to evaluate the debate. If your framework is something very different from a CBA (e.g. deontology) it needs to be in constructive.

I love weighing overviews and will 100% evaluate them as long as they're brought up by rebuttals.

Evidence:

If you tell me to call for a card OR seeing a card is necessary in order for me to make my decision, I'll call for it.

When sharing evidence with either me or your opponents, the evidence should be in cut card form or a highlighted PDF. Sending just a link is unfair to your opponents and annoying to me!

Don't paraphrase, however I tend to be pretty lenient on evidence ethics. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if the evidence didn't exist. I'm not opposed to dropping teams solely on terrible evidence ethics, but you'd probably have to act pretty awfully in order for me to do so.

Other stuff:

I talk really fast in real life, and I talked really fast in debate, so I can handle max PF speeds. Spreading is harder online and early in the morning - I'll do my best, but remember that if I don't get stuff on my flow because you were talking too fast that's your fault. With that said, if you are clearly speaking too fast for your opponents, I'll probably dock your speaks - I think that's rude and exclusionary for an event that's supposed to be open for anyone.

Please time yourselves and your opponents! I am not timing and will let you keep talking if no one else stops you, which just makes the round last longer and is unfair to everyone else.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I LOVE roadmaps. They should be brief, and I can tell when teams use it to steal prep, but if you do it well I will love you. I don't think it ever hurts to make sure you and your judge are on the same page.

This is also why it's crucial for you to signpost. There's nothing worse than you giving killer responses, but me missing them because you lost me in your speech.

You should be using voters in summary/final focus! It's not a dealbreaker for me but it will make me like you more and I'll probably boost your speaks. It also just makes for better debates, so do it!

If you have any questions I'd love to answer them, just ask me before the round!

BRB listening to 10 minute version of All Too Well

Please Weigh

---------------------------------------------------

If you are going to include a framework please be sure to connect it to your impacts. I'll vote off of impact calc through the lense of whichever framework wins.

Weighing is the most important thing, link weigh if both sides link into the same impacts. If you plan on meta weighing be prepared for some more judge interference in terms of decision making, so be cautious! I want to hear the analytics behind the weighing as well, and be comparative.

Frontline! Defense in the second rebuttal! Narrative! Extend actual evidence!

---------------------------------------------------

I am ok with Ks IF they have a direct link into being a prereq of the topic. Prereq-ing the activity itself is also ok, but I would prefer it connect to the specific topic.

Lastly, please don't be rude. I will drop you if you are rude.

1. Preflow before the round begins. Please do not sit in the round preflowing while making everyone else wait for you.

2. Defense sticks. Offensive arguments need to be in both summary and final focus, so collapse and weigh strategically (obviously, right?)

3. Start weighing early. I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus absent any weighing done by either team at any other point in the round.

4. Evidence is meaningless to me if unwarranted. I am very receptive to logical warrants and analysis.

5. I hope this paradigm reflects the style of debate I prefer: concise arguments, specificity, and coherent organization.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round begins.

I did public forum for three years, and this year will be my fourth. Now that leads you to make some assumptions about me: namely that I am a good flower. Never assume.

Update: I learned how to flow!

I describe myself as a moderately flow judge. I should be able to get most of the round, and speed should not be too much of an issue as long as you are clear and signpost. Signposting and clarity are far more important to my flow than speed. If you are gonna go fast, make damn sure I know where you are on the flow. In a pf round, if you have good word economy, you shouldn't even need to go that fast.

Defense. Don't need it in summary (unless it's been responded to and you want to extend It later on). Defense is sticky. Definitely need to respond to your opponents defense. Rebuttal --> FF defense extensions are okay AS LONG AS IT IS A CLEAN EXTENSION. Defense will be more persuasive if it is in both but summary is a tough speech. If you want me to evaluate turns, they have to be in both summary and FF.

Notes About the Second Rebuttal

1. Do not read me a new unrelated contention. I'll flow it and will evaluate it, but if the other team calls you out for being abusive, or puts a few responses on it, I will be inclined to agree with them.

2. Answer turns from first rebuttal. Answer all offense coming out of first rebuttal. Start weighing for me, the second half of the round is starting to shape up.

On Arguments:

Alternative positions: Nah. Not about it (try it if you really want but make it super easy to understand). I default util, its the wave.

If you can warrant, I can buy it. With that being said, if the argument sounds dumb, I will be inclined to buy common sense responses.

Win your links and weigh your impacts.

Evidence:

Be prepared to share it with everyone, including me should I ask for it. If you tell me to, I will call evidence. If you blatantly miscut evidence, and I can tell, I will call it. If I think your evidence is too good to be true, I will call it.

Weighing: Weigh for me. Do a lot of comparative analysis. Tell me why your link is better. Tell me why your impact is bigger. Otherwise I decide, and people tell me I'm stupid.

Extend warrants before impacts in both summary and final focus. It is far more interventionist for me to extend your warrant for you than it is for me to just drop the impact that you went for without a warrant. If you are winning the warrant debate you are probably wining the round.

No one has ever won crossfire by just straight overpowering their opponent. Talking loudly doesn't make you good at debate.

Be funny. Be Kind. I always would appreciate coffee/water or food.

#WORLDSTAR

- If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being obnoxious ) you are expected to yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and you're partner each get 1.0 added to your speaks. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get deducted 0.1 speaks for interrupting cross.

- I will be updating my paradigm as the year progresses to track all the #WORLDSTAR moments in rounds below:

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

I am a pretty straight forward policy maker, weigh your impacts and I will vote on the cost-benefit analysis. As for speed, I may handle moderately quick speaking, but all out speed will leave gaps in my flow, and I will have a difficult time voting for those arguments. Tell me a well-warranted story about why I should vote for you.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

To summarize, I don't think it's my role to limit the kinds of styles or arguments that you can succeed with (unless they are overtly harmful). But it's important to me that everyone has a fair chance to engage. I think that the educational value of debate is maximized when there are coherent narratives on both sides that result in thoughtful comparison of perspectives and ideas. Ultimately, it's your choice how you debate, but I think the following preferences will make for a positive experience.

Warrants are important in every part of the debate.

Weighing should clarify how to vote when both sides have offense. If you don't weigh, you leave it up to me to choose which argument I think is most important. I default to util.

I can keep up with the faster end of PF, but enjoy rounds that are at most moderately fast and incorporate strong narratives.

I'll evaluate theory arguments that are read to check severe instances of in-round abuse. Paragraph theory is acceptable in these instances.

However, I disagree with frivolous use of theory in PF. Teams should not enter rounds with the intention of running theory on negligible violations. Do not look for a violation so that you can make the debate inaccessible for the other team and win the round on a technicality.

I am receptive to meta-debate analyses and arguments about the role of the ballot. I’m willing to listen to Ks, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you read these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon and use accessible language.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve. Good luck and have fun! :-)

Hi! I did PF at Whitman for 4 years. Now I’m at Yale, where I privately coach PF teams. I don’t like long paradigms, so I will try to be concise.

Style:

1. Be respectful to your opponents. You can be sassy in cross but do not be condescending. Especially if you are male, be careful of how you treat your female opponents. I am not a fan of mansplaining.
2. I can handle speed but not spreading.

Content:

1. It is highly strategic for 2nd rebuttal to respond to turns from the first rebuttal (if not all of the first rebuttal defense on your extension). However, I will not automatically extend the turns if you choose not to.
2. 1st summary does not need to extend terminal defense if it has not been responded to yet.
3. You must weigh. I cannot emphasize this enough. I appreciate good weighing, especially comparative analysis that starts early. Go beyond one word blips, and explain your weighing in detail. Start weighing in rebuttal—you will find your opponents rarely respond to it and makes it very easy for you later in round.
4. When you are extending, DO NOT merely say the card name. Explain what the card says and extend warranting.
5. I think theory is often mis-used in PF as a strategy to confuse your opponents rather than actually pointing out abuse. Therefore I am generally not receptive to theory unless it has all the correct parts (interpretation, violation, standards/reasons to prefer, voters) and is actually responding to abusive practices. Theory has not worked on me so far. It is not likely it will work on me in the future. Do not risk it.
6. Edit for the new 3 minute summary rule: please please collapse. I will not respond positively should you choose to utilize your 3 min summary to extend all of your arguments rather than weigh and make better analysis.

Have fun! I am here to help you get better, so before the round, if you have any particular skills you want me to watch out for and critique, I am happy to do so.

I have debated 4 years of PF and graduated in 2017.

Speed: Any PF speed is fine. When my flowing game is weak I miss author names so be clear with signposting and explaining what your evidence says when extending it in late speeches.

Evidence: I will call for a card if a debater tells me to in late speeches or if I think/know the card is misrepresented or if it has been significantly contested in the round. Please do not misconstrue evidence. If you commit and egregious violation I WILL drop you with 0 speaks. If you misrepresent a card slightly I will either not evaluate it or read what the card has to say and evaluate it as written (depending on the level of abuse). I don't expect you to read a full card verbatim; paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't misconstrue things. Dates would be nice when reading a card for the first time but I'm not gonna drop you for not reading dates.

Late Speeches/Extensions: Defense in rebuttal does not need to be extended in first summary (unless you are extending something that is covered in second rebuttal) but should be in second summary. If it is completely ignored by the other team, I might let the second speaking team extend it straight into second FF but don't count on it. Extensions in summary can be a bit blippy and I'll let it slide because the speech has a ton of responsibilities but don't drop something big like all of your impacts or links. Extensions in final focus should have a fully developed argument or else it'll be hard for me to vote there. Try to do weighing in both late speeches but I won't penalize you if the weighing in summary is bad/not fully developed/doesn't really exist.

Second Rebuttal: Don't need to cover your own case but do so if you think it is strategic.

Ks/Theory/Non-standard Arguments: Feel free to run whatever arguments you want as long as they are not offensive (I will drop you/an argument if you are blatantly offensive). I will vote off of Ks or Theory or anything you tell me to vote off of as long as you make the argument well and make it clear to me what the role of the ballot is. Please check for abuse in CX if you run theory or just make it abundantly clear that abuse has taken place. If you run a K make sure you develop it well (it's hard in a 4 minute constructive but can be done).

Speaker Points: Speaking well in debate is as much about making smart arguments and strategic choices as it is about sounding pretty. If you debate well, you will get good speaks, unless you are mean in CX or say something offensive.

If you have any questions or think something in my paradigm is dumb, feel free to ask/argue with me about it!

Great Communicator Series: Please refer to just the Main PF Paradigm and the GCS Rules.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Jeffrey Miller

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

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

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

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

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

What role does theory play in good debates?

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

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

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

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

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

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

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

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit for the Blake School from 2014-2018. I also coached for the Nueva School my first year in college. I'm currently a senior at UC Berkeley studying Political Economy. I haven't been involved in debate for a few years now, so please don't go super fast, but other than that I still remember how the activity works.

Last Chance BQD:I took 5th at Nats in BQ so I have a pretty good understanding of the event. There are little to no limits on arguments you can run in BQ so I will be pretty tabula rasa when it comes to argumentation. I, personally, believe the event should be debated pretty lay/accessible but I will not hold that against you if you run technical arguments. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm for more information.

Basics: I competed in LD from 2016-2020 with experience locally and nationally. Now, I am the head coach of Dublin Jerome HS in Ohio where I coach all events. I have experience with all types of arguments and the remainder of this paradigm just goes over my preferences.

Conflicts: Louisville Sr. HS (OH), Dublin Jerome HS (OH), Alliance HS (OH).

LD:

Framework: You must run a V/VC. I use the framework to weigh the round but I do not vote on it alone. Do NOT make it a KVI because it carries no weight on its own.

Contention Level: I keep a rigorous flow. This means I will ask you to follow a line by line and will record all dropped arguments. This does not mean I will vote on who covers the most ground. You need to extend dropped arguments and weigh them against your opponents. If you kick a contention(s) that's fine, I don't care, just let me know in speech.

Evidence: You need to provide evidence in a timely fashion. I will use your prep time if you abuse this grace period. I will (likely) not review the evidence. It is not the judge's responsibility to do the evidence analysis. If there is a breach of rules then I will intervene. Otherwise, it is both debaters' duty to show why their analysis of the evidence is better.

PF:

*************Frontline. Frontline. Frontline.*****************

Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive or I will drone you out.

Line by line: I don't buy the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you.

Evidence: *SEE LD* If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep.

Please Please Please ask me questions if you have them. I take no offense at all if you question any one of these comments. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!!

Robert Duncan He/Him/His

Head Speech and Debate Coach, Dublin Jerome HS

Columbus District DEIB Chair

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

I did PF in high school and I am now a senior in college, do with that information what you will. Please add mirandahopenutt@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com 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."

The basics:

- 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.

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

Judging Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

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

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

I did PF for three years at Columbus High School and am now a junior at Emory University. Im probably not very different than any standard flow judge. For specifics:

1. I try to vote on whatever offense is cleanest in the round, whether it be dropped turns or something from case. This basically just means that the easiest way to get my ballot is collapsing and weighing as early as possible.

2. I like consistency between summary and final focus, so if you plan on going heavily for something in ff, structure the summary accordingly. I'm not against 1st speaking teams extending defense from rebuttal to final assuming that it's explained well in rebuttal, but I still prefer to hear it in summary.

3. I'm not receptive to long offensive overviews in rebuttal that are basically new contentions and am very unlikely to vote on them. Second rebuttal should also address offense from 1st rebuttal - defense can be responded to in summary, but like responding earlier is still probably better

4. I don't care about speed, go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I don't flow author names typically, so please don't extend just names.

5. for speaks: big fan of being funny and signposting. dont steal prep.

6. preflow before round!!!

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

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

Topic thoughts:

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

In short:

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

--

he/him

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

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

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

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

In general:

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

How I decide rounds/preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical arguments:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

I did 2 years of circuit debate pretty competitively.

I try to be flow, only two things kinda different about me:

1. Terminal defense exists to infinity. If you never frontline an argument your opponents defensive ink still exists on my flow. Them not extending responses is not an excuse. Extensions of terminal defense are never necessary, just appreciated. You will never win an argument if defense against it is dropped.

2. I care more about warrants than impacts. Weighing an impact is irrelevant at the point that you do not win the links into the impact. If there is clash at the warrant level make sure to weigh links and actually explain to me why your warrant should be preferred to that of your opponents.

I'll evaluate any claim backed up in evidence or logic, run crazy shit, it's fun

I have been judging LD debate for almost ten years. I am comfortable with speed, hate frivolous theory, and appreciate a thoughtful and well-structured K. If you have further questions, feel free to ask me at the start of the round.

I debated 4 years in policy and pf at Saratoga High School.

Most of this paradigm is stolen from my high school debate partner (love u ayush <3) so please feel free to ask questions before the round

*I won't vote for an argument that doesn't have a warrant

*If it's important it should be in every speech (including key defense)

*Speed is fine, but slow down for taglines and citations. Don't use it exclude other debaters. It's been some time since I've had to flow particularly fast debating, so please start slower and ramp up if you plan on going very fast. I'll shout clear if I need to

*I probably have a higher threshold for case extensions than other PF judges. I require a full extensions of links, warrants and impacts to vote on an argument

*DO NOT take advantage of or commodify the suffering of marginalized groups to win rounds !!!

Theory

-I'm fine with evaluating theory, but would definitely prefer to judge a substance debate

-Default to competing interps, no RVI, drop the arg (unless justified otherwise)

K

-I like kritikal arguments, but the worst rounds are those that contain badly run Ks, so please do not run a K if you are unsure about how to do so

-Ks don't necessarily need an alt

-Don't assume I know your literature and please explain thoroughly, especially if your K is not particularly common (ie cap, biopower, security etc.)

-Default to K comes before theory (unless justified otherwise)

Evidence

-I prefer debaters read evidence straight from cards. Paraphrasing often leads to misconstruing

-I will only call for cards if told to, and I'll be unhappy if things don't line up

-Pls read authors and years

Background: I actively coached from the fall of 2002 through the national tournament of 2017. I coached all events at various points, but had strong LD, PF, Congress, and Individual Events experience through the years. I was on the Board of Directors of the National Speech & Debate Association prior to joining the organization as their Director of Community Engagement. Through that work I oversaw processes related to topic writing, competition rules, publications, and National Tournament operations. I am currently the Principal of Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa.

Debate preferences:

1) Clear signposting

2) Give me clear warrants - even in extensions - with specific impacts.

3) I prefer having a framework to compare impacts to, which makes weighing important.

4) I am not against speed, however, I do not judge a lot. Therefore, I don't have the skill that I used to. Slow down for tags and analytics.

5) Theory/Kritiks - I am not inherently opposed, however, I worry about the assumptions people make about how arguments interact with one another and me having that same knowledge. I also worry about the lack of time to develop such arguments.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Flanagan in South Florida. I'm currently a junior at Duke University. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be very similar in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you.

- Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost.

- Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. The 2nd rebuttal should answer all offense, including turns.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I spoke relatively fast when I debated but hated it. I can generally flow speed but anything close to spreading shuts me off. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). You don't need to read full shells or anything for me, I'm totally fine with paragraph theory.

- Making absurd arguments. This event tests your ability to gain and disseminate knowledge and that needs to be done with integrity. If part of what makes debate an activity is discerning between misrepresentations and realities of the world and communicating them to the general public (in a forum), then I reserve the right to disregard silly arguments that blatantly misrepresent how the world works in my attempt to tell who has done the better debating. For example, impacting strictly to GDP growth as a good thing would be an argument I could not evaluate (ask me in person for why this absolutely makes no sense).

Going for TRUTH is not as incompatible with the TECH as you'd like to think. It's harmful to think they're unequivocally at odds.

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit from 2013-2017. This is my fourth year coaching for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina. I currently am a senior attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill majoring in Peace, War, and Defense with a concentration in international security and intelligence.

Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.

General

I will buy any argument and vote off of it. This includes kritiks and theory... Just warrant such arguments well.

I don't care if you paraphrase. Just don't misconstrue what your evidence actually says.

Split rebuttals are impressive/strategic but they are not necessary. Just make sure your first speaker frontlines effectively in summary. However, feel free to make their job easier and frontline for them in rebuttal.

My threshold for warranting arguments is very very high. If you are winning an argument in case or in rebuttal, clearly articulate the link chain of the argument when you are extending it. This does not mean shout random card names at me. Just walk me through the logical link chain of what you are extending.

Speed/Signposting

I can flow at just about any speed

However.....

If you are going to speak quickly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. ie: "We are winning our 2nd response on their first contention, which is *insert well explained warrant* *insert well explained impact*." I also do not know all the names of authors in your case so tell me what authors say!! Do not just extend specific authors!!

I flow fairly quickly but if I do not know where you are you will likely see me scrambling to figure out what to do with my flow. You should pay attention if I do this because that means slow down or signpost better.

Also....

If you have an issue with your opponents evidence make it very clear to me in the round. You can do this in many ways. Examples include reading your opponents evidence out-loud during a speech, explaining how the evidence is misread, and/or telling me to call for the evidence post round.

I will not call for your evidence unless asked to call for something. In my opinion, calling for evidence without a reason is a form of judge intervention.

How to get 30 speaks:

Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.

I personally hate rounds that are way too serious and debaters are not questioning the analytical logic of each others arguments in an entertaining way. This does not mean turn the round into a joke but rather pretend like there is an audience on the zoom call/in the back of the room. This is generally a good strategy to seem perceptually dominate too.

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Cypress Bay High School in Florida. I recently graduated from UNC Chapel Hill where I coached for schools like Durham Academy and Cypress Bay.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be very similar in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you.

- Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost. WEIGHING SHOULD START IN REBUTTAL

- I DONT REQUIRE TERMINAL DEFENSE IN FIRST SUMMARY- That being said, I believe that terminal defense in the round is "sticky"- if you don't engage with terminal defense that is put on your case, I won't evaluate the argument

- Jokes. Funny debates are always more entertaining.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I spoke relatively fast when I debated but hated it. I can generally flow speed but anything close to spreading shuts me off. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ex: read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). That being said, if it is brought up and used properly, I will evaluate it

- Don't be rude in cross, humor is allowed though

- DO NOT TELL ME YOUR OPPONENTS DROPPED AN ARGUMENT OR RESPONSE WHEN THEY VERY CLEARLY DIDN'T

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.

Public Forum

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 like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

I'm a first year out. I debated Public Forum for three years on the national circuit for Campbell Hall in Los Angeles. I am now a freshman at Brown University and I do APDA.

This is mostly preferences. At the end of the day, I will probably adapt to you.

Speed: I can understand and flow pretty much anything up to tier one policy spreading. Just be clear and I'll be fine. However, if you're going to really spread, you should probably either give your opponents your case/speech doc and/or ask them if they are okay with speed. Also please signpost.

Progressive debate: I will vote on theory and Ks if they are structured and well warranted. If you're going to run non-shell theory it should be pretty strong. I think that progressive debate is interesting and I will appreciate it if you bring up an issue that makes the debate more meaningful. I don't really like disclosure theory, but I suppose I will vote for it if it's dropped.

Second rebuttal: I don't require case defense in second rebuttal, but you should probably respond to turns, as that is offense.

Summary and final focus: Any offense should be in both, but first summary does not have to extend defense if it was unresponded to in second rebuttal. If a turn isn't in summary, however, I will just consider it defense. Please collapse. I would recommend one contention/subpoint (basically one on-case impact) and 1-2 turns. I would prefer line-by-line to big picture. However, I expect you to extend warrants and impacts in BOTH these speeches. I need the whole argument in order to vote for it.

Weighing: You MUST weigh. Even if you have just a tiny bit of offense left, if you weigh, and tell me why that tiny bit of offense matters more than all of your opponent's, and your opponent does not weigh, I will vote for you. If you have the same impacts, please weigh on strength of link. Weighing should start in summary so you can compare weighing mechanisms, but I don't consider weighing in FF a new argument.

Prep time: Unless tournament rules directly contradict, TOC rules apply. You can prep while your opponent is looking for evidence to encourage quick access to evidence. In general, I'm not too strict about prep time. Don't go way over, but I encourage you to call for evidence, and I think strict adherence to prep time discourages that.

Evidence: I will call for it if you tell me to, even if I think it is insignificant for my decision. I want to crack down on evidence abuse, but the debaters have to be the ones to check each other. So, if you see some really abusive evidence and your opponents don't drop it, tell me to call for it. If it is genuinely abusive, I will vote them down. If evidence is highly disputed within round and it makes it hard to fully understand what is going on, someone please just read it aloud in cross-ex so I understand what y'all are talking about.

Speaker points: I will be pretty generous as long as you don't say anything offensive. Have fun, speak clearly, be strategic, and have a well organized speech, and I will give you pretty high speaks. Feel free to make jokes, be sassy, etc.. Make the round fun to judge. +1 speaker point for salt and vinegar kettle chips. +1 speaker point if you use grand cx for something useful like resolving a conspiracy theory.

Overviews: I love a weighing overview. The only thing I don't like is offensive overviews which are basically another contention (if it is theory or a turn on the whole case, fine). If it is in first rebuttal, I could vote for it, but certainly not second.

Frameworks: Only read one if it is a. not util/cost-benefit analysis and b. well warranted. For example, do not read a US interests first framework and never tell me why the resolution actually implies it or give me a philosophical backing for it. If you win your framework, I will only consider arguments that fit under that framework. I will default util if no framework is read. This means I assume no framework = util framework, so "they don't provide an alternate framework" is not a good defense.

Fiat: I give the AFF fiat only in that the resolution is passed. This means I don't really buy politics DAs, you can't assume the government is now composed of different people/ideologies, and the AFF cannot have detailed plans of how the policy will be implemented unless they have evidence that this is the most likely manifestation of the resolution.

General stuff:

- Dropped arguments are conceded. If your opponents say the sky is green and you don't respond to it in the appropriate speech, for the sake of the debate, the sky is green. Basically tech>truth.

- I am unlikely to do this, but if I truly believe there is no offense left on either side, I will default to the first speaking team, since I believe they are at a disadvantage.

- Only give me an off-time roadmap if you're doing something unusual. If you have an overview, please tell me where to flow it.

- I don't mind paraphrased evidence as long as it actually says what you're saying it says.

- I will disclose unless someone will yell at me for doing so.

I competed in PF for all 4 years.

The round is in your hands; I will vote for any arg and any style, just convince me. I prefer to vote for the work you put on the flow, not necessarily the best args. I vote for the best debaters. That being said, I'm skeptical of teams using theory in PF.

Defense is sticky. Any evidence/arg in Final Focus must be in a previous speech (not just CX).

Use prep time whenever you're talking with your partner, writing on your flow, typing, or looking at evidence outside speeches.

Talking fast (when necessary) is fine, but I won't be able to flow full-on spreading.

Be nice and have fun :)

Post-Emory thoughts:

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

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

For WKU -

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

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

Debate is good as a whole

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

Who am I?

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

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

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

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

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

Prior to the round

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

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

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

Non-negotiables

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

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

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

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

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

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

Negotiables

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

Tech vs truth

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

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

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

Theory

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

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

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

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

IVIs

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

I did PF for four years in HS and have coached PF for 4 years since. I was head PF coach for the Bronx High School of Science in the 20-21 year, and am an incoming graduate student in Philosophy. My pronouns are he/him.

Students' safety and comfort is my top priority in round so I will drop debaters who, in whatever way, make the round less safe/comfortable for other debaters (purposefully or otherwise). I also encourage debaters in the round to press claims to this effect in or outside of speeches, whether those claims are against their opponents, me, an observer, etc. Feel free to get in touch with me via email (nathan.witkin@gmail.com), including during the round.

Please default to they/them pronouns, should you be unsure of anyone's preferences.

---

I'm fine with speed, K debate, theory, etc. but clarity (w/r/t explanation and articulation) is a must esp. online. Consider that the odds I miss something scales with speed. I may ask for clarification if your audio cuts out at any point.

Defense is not "sticky," i.e. must be extended in every speech just like offense. Following from this, extension through ink is fine if your opponents don't extend the ink. This includes cases where a team extends conceded defense into summary, but not into FF. The defense is lost if not extended into FF. Second rebuttal still should frontline, because I don't accept completely new frontlining in second summary (you can still develop a previous defense debate in new ways).

New weighing in either summary is fine, but not in FF. As with defense in rebuttal/summary, I'm relatively permissive when it comes to what is "new," so you have some leeway to further develop prior disputes about weighing/defense/offense in FF. The rough threshold is whether what you're adding in later speeches can be reasonably construed as entailed by something said earlier (it is usually permissible to further specify or explain something, even if it has been mostly implicit up until the later speech).

I won't call evidence unless you tell me to, or unless I need it to make any decision at all (for instance, if the round hinges entirely on one piece of evidence).

On progressive arguments [in PF]: as a result of my academic background, there is a solid chance I will be at least somewhat familiar with the literature on what you are running. That means I may have a higher standard for what a sufficient explanation of the argument ought to look like. Your argument should be well-explained enough that unfamiliar opponents won't be classed out of the round by jargon. Relatedly, don't treat abstract impacts like those to reinforcing patriarchy (etc.) as magical trump cards for outweighing more generic PF impacts (I think this does a serious disservice to them, and often evinces a lack of understanding of the arguments themselves and their significance). That goes for post-fiat arguments and for pre-fiat ones you might be weighing against (for example) the educational value of traditional substance-debates. If you think your impact in either case should get special priority, weigh it like any other. The bottom line for me is that what you're reading is ultimately just like any other argument, and won't on face be treated differently because you're drawing from one academic literature (e.g. post-colonial studies, critical sociology, etc.), as opposed to another (economics, political science, etc.), unless of course you give me an uncontested or contested but won reason why.

Two addendums for rare(ish) situations:

1. I don't allow second-speaking team to trick first by frontlining one contention and then going for the other (since, if defense is not sticky, first team might then have dropped all their defense on the non-frontlined, but surprisingly extended contention if they did not predict the trick, and then lose access to it later since it wasn't in first summary). It's conceivable I might let this possibility stand, which would require first team to always extend at least one piece of terminal defense on non-frontlined args as insurance, but this seems like an unnecessary burden.

2. Weighing that is introduced in first rebuttal does not need to be frontlined in second rebuttal. I allow the second team to respond to weighing for the first time in second summary (it still might be a good idea to also respond in the rebuttal).

Let me know if you have any further questions before the round starts.

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. You're better off using your new 3 minute summary to make your link and impact extensions cleaner than you are packing it full of args.

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.

As a note, I am pretty hard on evidence, especially as sharing docs is becoming more popular. If you are making an argument, and the evidence is explicitly making a different argument, I won't be able to flow your arg.

Speed is fine, but spreading isn't. I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link, but they have to link to the topic y'all, so they basically have to be a critical disad.

I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm really skeptical of how often that is.

Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.

You should pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!

I'm an assistant PF coach at Charlotte Latin and a graduate student at the University of Alabama. My email is dmzell@crimson.ua.edu

Strake RR Paradigm

1. Anything on the ballot must be in final focus, and anything besides weighing in final focus must be in summary.

2. Please weigh. Tell me why your argument justifies a vote for you even if your opponent’s arguments are true.

3. I'm generally sympathetic to the first speaking team. Defense is not necessary in first summary, and new evidence should not be in the second. While you don't have to frontline everything, the second rebuttal needs to answer all offense.

4. If you are going to concede your opponent’s argument, it must be in the speech immediately after it was made.

5. Please be respectful. Avoid overly-aggressive crossfires and rudeness.

6. Evidence ethics matter a great deal to me. I don't care if it’s called for or contested, I will not vote on a miscut card. Lying about evidence is too easy and too common in this activity, and I have decided that intervening is worth it to stop cheating. If a card sounds sketchy to me, I will call for it, and if the card is severely miscut, drop the team. Please know that I understand evidence mixups can happen, as well as the "power tagging effect", where a card gets a bit exaggerated as the round progresses. There's a difference between that and fabricating, clipping, or grossly misrepresenting your evidence. The former might cause me to lower speaks, but the latter will be an L 20.

In General

I am a fan of speed and tech debate, but I'm out of practice--particularly with flowing. Just keep in mind that the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something. If you want to spread, try to reduce the risk of this by slowing down for key parts of arguments/cards and signposting well.

I will listen to pretty much any argument, but I may not know what to do with it. If you're going to make progressive arguments, make sure you're clear on how you want it evaluated and why.

Tech > Truth in the sense that dropped argument are true ones

Truth > Tech in the sense that I'm more than happy to listen to uncarded analysis if it's good.

If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll presume for the first speaking team, not neg. The structure of PF makes such an outcome much easier for the second speaking team to avoid.

" Last changed 11 January 2024 2:17 PM EST" - Tabroom 2024 ):

Hello!

I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook, email me (kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com), or ask me before the round.

IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. If some form of abuse or violence occurs in round and I don't immediately react, please feel free to FB PM me or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com. [I say this because as a cis het woman, I may not be able to pick up on certain types of violence and I believe debaters should determine their level of safety and/or comfort

General Stuff:

- You should read trigger warnings if you have the slightest inclination your argument could trigger someone

- use people's pronouns or gender neutral language in the case pronouns aren't disclosed

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal

- If you're speaking second, you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary abusive

- Be nice

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. Feel free to FB message me before the round, come up to me privately, or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary. First summary should frontline turns

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.

Speed:

Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).

Evidence:

I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision

Progressive Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round or you feel unsafe, please feel free to use these forms of argumentation. Just explain your argument well. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K.

Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!