I have been competing in/coaching different formats of debate for the last six years.

IF YOU ARE A JERK, I WON'T AUTOMATICALLY DROP YOU, BUT I WILL SIGNIFICANTLY DROP YOUR SPEAKER POINTS.

When it comes to Public Forum, simply because of the way it is set up, I find that teams often fail to weigh and frame the round. Because these things are not clearly built into Public Forum the way they are in other formats, there are many rounds I feel I need to intervene in and make decisions about which arguments are most important in the round. So the best way to win my ballot is to tell me WHY your arguments should be more highly valued in the round. If it's because your framework should lead me to believe that, why should I prefer your framework? If it's because the impacts are immediate, why should I prefer short term impacts? etc.

If you're already at a point where you do that consistently, the things I prefer and look for in a round are: sincere respect for all people in the room, strength of argumentation, and creative arguments. In my mind, it is unfortunate that PF has excluded Ks, Ts, and Counter-plans as forms of argumentation acceptable within the format. I love hearing wacky arguments. If you have an argument that is way out of left field, that is super far left or dangerously far right hidden in your arsenal, please run it in front of me.

Of course, getting to the point of needing to weigh the value of different impacts, or playing into my preference of being entertained by creative argumentation, first requires that both teams successfully presented and defended a case clearly and still have substantial impacts standing at the end of the round. If you are not at a point where your argumentation/refutation skills consistently bring you to the end of a debate with your impacts still standing, here is what you should focus on in front of me:

I am a firm believer that debate is about growth and learning. You will not lose points in front of me for taking a break to think in the middle of your speech. You will lose points for not using all of your time. If you have completed everything you plan to say, never concede the remainder of your time. Stand up there and think. Is there anything else you can say that would help you and your partner win the round? If you run out your time still thinking, that's fine. High school debate is a time to stretch yourself - always try to make more arguments.

It also seems to me that the biggest thing most inexperienced teams need to learn is how to explain how their argumentation or refutation effects the round as a whole. Don't just make an argument and pretend like it exists in a vacuum. Tell me how your refutation ultimately changes the world that your opponents presented to me. What effect does your refutation have on the impacts that your opponents claim?

5 Things to Remember

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then dont in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework :

If you dont provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis. Whilst a clear framework/voting issues helps, you can not use a framework to overly narrow the resolution or impose an undue burden on your opponent (e.g. unless my opponent does X I win).

3. Extensions :

Don’t just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and termanlize your impacts. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation.

4. Evidence :

I prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round.

5. Narrative :

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t necessarily 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.**

Speaker Points

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 im- portant 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.

Speed needs to be a reasonable. Too fast is not acceptable. I will NOT weigh anything I can't hear, understand nor if your going too fast so I can't keep up. A good indication is if I put my pen down I'm not flowing.

Sources as well as statistics need to be explained well and how it ways into your case. Clash to your opponents case with evidence of how I should weigh it to your side with how it fits into your framework/impacts.

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not just a blip.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS A CARD THAT SAYS WELL ACTUALLY WSJ SAYS XYZ.

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

I have been a coach at Evanston for 5 years, and have been judging for them for 7+

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

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

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

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

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

I will make decisions that are good if:

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

I will make decisions that are bad if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other specifics, please ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello! I debated at Schaumburg High School in Schaumburg, IL between 2012-2015. I competed Public Forum and Congress. I am familiar with Lincoln Douglas debate.

I value weighing and clear voters. Voters from Summary should mirror what will come in the Final Focus. Know your win conditions.

I think most people squander cross examinations in PF. It should be a time to pin your opponent into lines of thought that you trap them with later, it should not be a time to read evidence or make a speech. Keep questions quick and concise.

10 years judging and coaching PF—9 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions--two online years), 7 times at Nationals

Add me to your evidence email. brandonc@svsd410.org

I coach only Public Forum.

I am a high school English teacher full time.

Speed is fine with me.

I prefer big picture summaries

Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.

Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.

I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.

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? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.

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? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.

Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.

Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.

Off time roadmaps: Don't care.

My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.

I have been coaching debate since 1983. I was a policy debate coach and judge for 30+ years. In 2012, I started coaching Public Forum debate. I vote on clear impact calculus, politeness, clarity in speaking style and well cited sources. One of the reasons I left policy is because it became a ridiculous spewing of words much too fast for anyone who was not familiar with the evidence to understand.I prefer debaters who tell a "good story" rather than give me a bunch of numbers and blippy arguments. I am looking for real debate in conversational speeches in the round.

I believe crossfire should be where debaters clarify and explain. Answering questions so that we can look at the arguments and evidence honestly is important. Any kind of rude behavior in crossfire could very well lose you the round if I am the judge. I'm looking for an exchange of information in crossfire.

I try to go into each round without preconceived opinions, and I try hard not to intervene. I will look for the easiest place to vote in the round, especially if there is not clear impact calculus in the final two speeches.

My email is marshd@dexterschools.org

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.

Above all, I value clarity of argument in a debate. I want to see that you have reflected on the sources available to you and evaluated which are the best cards for you to present. Especially in the summary and final focus, walk me through why you have won the debate- make the decision as easy as possible for me. I find debaters who focus solely on speed and listing multiple cards often lose clarity of argument which is, ultimately, the essence of good debating.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge. When I'm deciding who won the round, I first evaluate framing issues like definitions, ground, and burdens. Then I evaluate the value/criterion level to determine what standard(s) I'm using to weigh the impacts. In many of the rounds I judge, I believe that there is unnecessary clash over values and criteria because both sides have the same standard but are using slightly different language. Once I understand the standard(s) level of the debate, I weigh the contention level arguments' impacts to see which side better upholds their standard. You debaters should be weighing impacts during your rebuttal speeches, and those impacts should carry weight because they connect to the standard.

I'm not great at flowing speed. Fast conversational is my limit.

I have a hard time following debates when the arguments are referred to by author names.

If you have a different approach to LD than the traditional model, I am open to it. I just need an explanation for why I should award you my ballot.

Congress: I generally follow the ICDA Congressional Debate rubric for scoring speeches.

Additionally, I ask myself "Is this the appropriate speech for the moment?" The first few speeches should construct the best arguments for and against the legislation, the speeches in the middle of the sequence should focus on refutation and extension, and the final speeches should have weighing and crystallization. For example, if the Con makes a great, impactful argument for why the legislation will have devastating unintended consequences, I expect the Pro side to engage with that argument right away.

For nominations and ranks, I'm rewarding the debaters who I believe would most persuade someone who is on the fence about the issues.

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

- FOR STAGG ON 1/27 -

I have experience judging PF and I've found that it's fairly similar to a traditional LD round, which I've been judging for five years. I will flow everything in your speeches, I pay attention during CX, and I will judge based on the flow. Ultimately you need to do your best to weigh your arguments against theirs or I will be forced to weigh for you.

I assume I won't see much "progressive" debate but I'm certainly open to it as long as you provide justifications for your method.

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff AND traditional LD>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks, you're better off striking me.

· I think part of being a good debater is making me care about what you're saying in addition to making me understand it.

· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!

Additional things you may find helpful:

I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative. I think debates about the debate space are really cool and educational. I also think debates about the hypothetical implementation of a plan are really cool and educational. So whichever one of these wins me over is entirely dependent on the round in front of me.

I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

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

I will make decisions that are bad if:

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

This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs to spread your opponent out, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.

Framework things that are important to me:

To expand on my last point...please weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something!!! I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.

If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

Stuff on Ks specifically:

I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff.

If you can explain/impact the rhizome or hyperreal stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.

I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.

If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy knock your speaks at least.

Stuff on theory specifically:

Generally convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.

I don't have a negative predisposition toward RVIs but if the debate is coming down to that it’s probably already making me sad.

If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out. On disclosure specifically: if they read something predictable or obviously within your resources to respond to just fine, I will be nonplussed. However, if they're reading something super specific or non-T that a reasonable person couldn't predict, I'm totally fine with disclosure theory.

*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time and that seems antithetical to education to me.

Additional additional stuff:

Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we" unless it's meaningfully symbolic for some reason. I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.

Please put me on the email chain (elizabethasperti@gmail.com). Even in my debating days, I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear? Also if you're ever wondering if you should send your analytics, send the analytics.

If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.

For everyone:

Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.

4 years debating for Stuy, 4 years coaching for Poly Prep

i flow (unfortunately)

- slow, please

- i don't know how to evaluate k's, theory, etc. (if there is an egregious abuse, i'm down to have a discussion or bring it higher up)

- no patience for cards getting called every five seconds-- just do some warranting :)

pretend i'm lay and have fun. i believe in you.

(30s if you win w/o reading evidence)

FOR Varsity PF:

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

You should shake your opponents hand but not mine.

Always let the coin hit the ground.

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

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

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

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

Do the correct standing/sitting procedure for crossfire please.

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

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

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

Bad: "Instead of affirming we should do this"

Good: "If you negate this will happen"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR LD/CX:

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

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