Tabroom.com

The Paradigm at Dowling Catholic

2018 — Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Erayle Amacker Hire None

Austin Andes Hire 8 rounds None

Sarah Baker Millard North HS

Last changed on Tue November 30, 2021 at 12:32 PM CDT

Universal Note:
I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I judge PF, LD, and Policy.

Experience:

I did PF for 4(ish) years at Millard West in Nebraska, and 4 years of college debate for Simpson College. In college I did PF and Parli. I have been coached by Fred Robertson, Tim Royers, Aarron Schurevich, Charles Fisher, Spencer Waugh, and many more.

Public Forum:

Arguments- I will not vote on kritiks, plans, or Topicality (if it's presented as non-resolutional, that's enough for me). I'm more traditional in this sense. If you present framework, I expect you to carry it through the whole debate, and tie your arguments back to it. If it's dropped in one speech, it's off my ballot. If you do not present framework or do not tell me how to weight arguments, I will vote on whatever I please, and you will probably be upset with it, so please for the love of god, tell me how to vote.

Speed- I'm fine with, but make sure your opponents can handle speed. I believe that debate needs to be accessible to all, and I want fair rounds that are clean.

Summaries- I'm fine with line by line, but I need you to start impact calculus in the summary if you are going to do so. I prefer summaries that have 2-4 voting issues, and how I should evaluate them. I won't vote you down either way.

Final Focus- If you do line by line in the final focus, you will most likely annoy me. I need 2-3 reasons why I should vote for you. I don't want to hear why your opponents lost, unless it's because you turned their argument to your side/it works for you.

I will always disclose when allowed. If I forget, please remind me. I will also answer any questions after my ballot is turned in, I don't like to be the reason a tournament is running late.

My speaker points range from 30-24, I will not go under 24 unless debaters made a offensive/harmful comment, or argue with my decision after round (questions are fine, do not get aggressive).

If the Affirmative does not meet their burden, I will always default Neg.

I am an experienced LD judge, and have been judging the event for 3+ years, I never competed in LD though.

Speed- I'm fine with, but make sure your opponents can handle speed. I believe that debate needs to be accessible to all, and I want fair rounds that are clean.

Using your value and criteria throughout all arguments is a major factor in my evaluation. I feel as if these are important aspects to an LD case, and are what make LD unique.

I can understand and keep up with most LD jargon. I will also heavily flow all arguments and will vote off my flow. If I don't have it written down it will not be voted on.

I consider myself a games judge in LD and policy, but expect you to tell me why I should vote for your arguments in the final speeches, so in this aspect I'm more a tab judge. I will also hear arguments of probability because of this.

Kathy Bhatt Lake Highland Preparatory None

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook

George Clemens Lake Highland Preparatory 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 6, 2020 at 7:27 AM EDT

Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.

Since I am judging more PF these days:
Clear ballot story. I care about evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case constructive, you had better have tagged, cited, and lined down carded evidence to support what you say. If you are looking for evidence in your prep time or in cross ex or I have to wait 5 minutes for you to find something before prep time even starts, you are debating from behind and your speaks will reflect your lack of preparation.

CX: Don't talk over each other. They ask a question, you ask a question. Bullies are bullies. I don't like bullies.
If it wasn't in the summary, it doesn't become offense in the Final Focus. Sign-post well. Have a ballot story in mind.

I hate generic link stories that culminate in lives and poverty. The link level matters a lot more to me than the impact level. Develop your link level better. High Probability/Low Magnitude impacts > Low Probability High Magnitude impacts.

Don't be a baby. If you and your coaches are trying to get cheap wins by bullying people with Ks and Theory and hand-me-down shells from your teams former policy back files, go to policy camp and learn how to become a policy debater. Disclosure is for plan texts. If you are running a plan, disclose it on the wiki. If you are not, no need to disclose. Disclosure privileges resource-rich debate programs with a team of people to prep your kids out.

Anna Correa West

Last changed on Fri January 8, 2021 at 4:39 AM CDT

Anna Correa (she/her)

Hi there!

I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1 year at Valley High School (2014-2018) and coached PF and some LD at Iowa City West last year (2018-2019).

In general:

- I'll vote for most arguments so long as it is supported and impacted appropriately. That being said, respect and human decency are important, so keep that in mind.

- Impacts are important. Your args and warrants mean nothing if you don't tell us why it matters or what it means for the way I'm supposed to vote.

- Debate is about debating, not listening to the sound of your own voice (that's for us coaches and judges to do lol). Regardless of your debate style or what kinds of args you're debating against, be sure to actually engage with your opponents. Don't talk over the substance of the round. Dig into the clash. We love to see it.

- Speak as quickly or slowly as you'd like. Whatever speed you choose, make sure you're speaking clearly. If asked to slow down, please do.

- I'm all about giving feedback and helping newer improve in their debating skill, so I'll give comments at the end of every round.

- If you have additional questions about my paradigm or after a round, please let me know!

- I was mostly a phil framework debater, and I'm most familiar with that style/literature but will listen to anything. Whatever style you choose, tell me how to evaluate the round, whether a standard or ROB or otherwise. Make sure you explain all things clearly though because I won't use my own knowledge to fill in the gaps in your arguments.

- Go at whatever speed you want and can clearly speak. Slow down for important taglines or author names. I'll say clear or slow several times if necessary.

- Theory/T: slow down on interp language. tell me everything I need to know. Don't leave me to default on things like drop the arg vs debater, etc.

- All args you want to be evaluated should be brought up in each speech. Even if it's conceded, at least mention it in subsequent speeches, so I flow it through. I won't flow args that are new in the 2.

- Persuasion is more important in PF than LD, but I'm still a flow-based judge. This means that args need to be pulled through the entirety of the round to be considered in my final decision.

- Non-empirical or "qualitative" args are totally fine, but you still need warrants of some sort and a reason it outweighs more easily quantified data.

- Crystallization and condensing in later speeches can be a smart strategy. Be intentional with the args you choose to spend time on as speeches get shorter.

- Weigh your args against your opponents' and impact your args to tell me why they matter. Tell me why your evidence and impacts mean you should win the round.

- I base PF speaks more on speaking style (but still strategy and overall approach) than I do for LD.

Policy

- I never debated policy but have judged some policy rounds at a state/regional level.

- Please include me on email chains, but keep in mind that this isn't a cure-all for my lack of policy experience.

- Don't assume I know anything about the topic or lit (because I probably don't).

- Be especially clear with T/theory interps, complex Ks, and CPs.

- I'll evaluate almost anything that is warranted, impacted, explained, and argued well.

- At the end of each speech, spend a few seconds summarizing your speech and telling me why you're winning.

- Clearly delineate offs as I should evaluate them, especially when a round includes a lot of layers.

Anne Deam Ames None

Leah Dunlevy Evanston Twp HS

Eimear Fanthorpe Hire None

Jeremy Fitzpatrick Johnston

Victoria Freeman Lincoln HS

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 2:03 PM CDT

I am and have been the coach at LHS for the last 9 years. I was also the 2021 NSDA's National Coach of the Year.

General Notes-
* I am in tab much more often than I'm behind a round at this point. As such, I may be rusty on some more specific lingo/ trends(read as: don't just label an argument a RVI and expect me to accept it on face, explain why it's important)
* I have a disability that has varying levels of impact depending on the day; when it's flaring up, I might have trouble flowing spreading, or processing information at that speed. If you don't want to exclude me from the round, it'd be helpful to check in with me before the round starts. I'm also super happy to talk about it if you have more specific questions :)

*I will NOT vote on: racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, anything other bigotry. Please just be cool people.

*If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.

PF-
Arguments- I'm very open to whatever style of argument you want to make in round, so long as you do it well. Don't just dump cards, actually offer in round analysis and engage with your opponent's arguments. If something is important to the round, I expect you to spend time on it. Regardless of the style, I need to see some sort of weighing mechanism in round- that could come from an observation or impact calc (or whatever else) so long as I have some sort of idea what I should be valuing. Absent of that, I'll default to generic util weighing. I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing, but will listen to either.
Speed- I prefer a moderate, not ludicrous, pace. If you want to go absurdly fast, that's fine, but understand I'll miss some details. I think it's really important for speed to be justified by content- so, if you're talking fast enough that you have to reiterate the same underview three times because you're out of content, I'd rather you slow down. At any speed, I really value clarity. It's also good to know that some days I physically won't be able to flow super quickly, so it wouldn't hurt to double check with me about speed before round.
Round Structure- First and foremost, I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the flow. So, make sure, in front of me, you're allocating your time in a way such that you're able to address everything important, as dropped arguments are essentially conceded.
I don't expect line by line argumentation in summary and final focus. Instead, the round should be narrowed down to the main points. This is where I expect a lot of weighing and analysis, not just 50 author names back to back.

LD-
Standards/ Framework- I don't have strong feelings any one way about V/Cr vs Single Standard and/or RoB etc. I initially learned LD through a pretty traditional framing, so I tend to track that way myself, but, I'm open to whatever you want to do if you explain in. If you're running some philosophy that's out there or uncommon, it would benefit you to explain it clearly.
Theory- I'm down, but it actually needs to be theory (read as: "Speed is unfair/ exclusionary" isn't an argument I'll evaluate; Interp, violation standard, voter framing is)
Ks- See above, I'll happily hear out a k with structure that actually functions within a round. YOU HAVE TO OFFER A LINK or there's no way for me to evaluate the K
A Priori/ Prima facie/ probably other things- justify why it matters and I'll hear it out.
**As a general interpretation, I view theory/ks/ a priori arguments etc as arguments. They aren't some sort of magical trap card that automatically win you the round. They are arguments that need to be interacted with and extended like anything else. Reading an ableism K in the NC and then leaving it there isn't going to win me over. Your opponent answering an identity K with arguments doesn't make them inherently bad, they're interacting with an argument you put out
Solvency- I don't inherently think solvency is important in LD. This doesn't mean that I won't hear out solvency arguments, but you need to justify why I should care about solvency for it to be a voting issue for me. "The aff doesn't offer any solvency" on its own isn't enough for me to vote on.

CX-
**I really don't judge policy all that often. If I'm behind your round, things were likely pretty desperate from a tab or judge hire perspective. Despite that, I will do my best to adjudicate the round- you'll probably just need to slow down a bit on taglines and important analysis for me.

Sam Garchik Ottumwa

Lindsay Garrett Homewood-Flossmoor High School 8 rounds None

Kenny Graciano SF Roosevelt

Eric D Greving Southeast Polk HS 8 rounds None

Tyler Gutzman Sioux Falls 8 rounds

John Holen Lincoln East HS

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 11:51 AM CDT

For circuit tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.
A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.
I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.
On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.
Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)
Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard
I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online
Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.
I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.
Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.
I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.
For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.
That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.
I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.
My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.
I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.
I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.
Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.
In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.
Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.
Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.
Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.
I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).
Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.
There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.
Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.
One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.
This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????
Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.
So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

Argument ratings

K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10
Performance: 10 out of 10
T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10
LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10
Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10
T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10
Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

Speed in person: 8.5/10
Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

(This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.
That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.
I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.
I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.
Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).
If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.
Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.
For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

Emma Kenney Liberty Sr HS None

Parker Klyn Ames

Last changed on Sun April 28, 2024 at 11:12 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and hopefully LD soon.

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes from a legendary coach that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

I judge for three reasons:

I love debate and enjoy judging.
Judging great debaters allows me to grow as a coach and judge.
Fulfilling my team's obligation.

Also, I'm on the 2024-2025 NSDA Public Forum Topic Selection and Wording Committee. Send me ideas!

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of (1) case & (2) all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge, I flow on my computer using Flower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, Spark, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framework and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want.

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards. Let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." My speaks are pretty standard although I find I am particularly generous (29.5+) to great debaters and particularly stingy (27-27.9) with debaters that miss the mark or make major strategic errors. In order to promote good norms, I will bump your speaks by +0.1 each if you (1) send speech docs with cut cards and (2) indicate to me that you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

I have begun to coach LD. I will wear my debater's Des Moines Hoover Husky Howler Novice LD tournament champion ribbon with pride for all eternity. (:

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

Still learning natcirc LD. However, I've watched dozens of those types of rounds on YouTube and am confident in my ability to evaluate debates. You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Not confident in evaluating performance or academic philosophy, this would probably require lots of warranting, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me.

I will default to voting on offense extended through the round, but judge instruction can convince me to vote on almost anything. Please attempt to write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Ask me questions ahead of time for any clarifications.

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

Smaller things: Crystallization speeches are lazy unless it's like the 7th speech of a bill and there has been actual clash the entire way down (make actual arguments instead!), being charismatic/entertaining is a good tiebreaker but doesn't replace a well-argued speech, good POs are hard to beat and bad POs make debate no fun (unless literally nobody else was willing to do it -- then I'll reward you on the ballot), treating bills as having real-life implications around the world >>> LARPing as US legislators

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

(This is a pretty self-indulgent section so only read if you think I provide useful insight into the activity):

You should always presume the other team, the judges, and the audience are acting in good faith. Any accusations or even implications towards someone cheating or otherwise breaking the rules should be "stake-the-round" moments -- that is, you better be willing to take a min speaks L if it's unfounded.

One of the single dumbest things I see in competitive debate is this trend of "I'll give u 0.5 speaks if u reference The Office" or "+1 speaks for bringing me a coffee!" It's pathetically and brazenly anti-educational and borderline exploitative (of children!), not to mention it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw because another team mentioned a dumb meme in their speech. I presume good intentions from people in this community but I am quite skeptical of those who do this.

Speaking of judges, I have zero patience for people who use their ballot/RFD to bully and demean. Congratulations, you're a college-educated adult and you found flaws in a 14-year-old's argumentation. If I'm on a panel or spectating a round where a judge's RFD is moving into bullying territory, I have no qualms cutting them off and reporting them to tab.

And finally with regards to judging -- I allude to this above, but I see far too many debates, especially here in Iowa, where the extent of judges' RFDs is "I didn't like your case" regardless of the actual content of the round. That makes me sad, as it invalidates dozens of hours of preparation and strategy-building between competitors and their coaches. It breaks my heart when I see a well-prepared team lose because the judge just "didn't buy it." I only vote on what is communicated to me within the debate. I do not care how unlikely it seems or how incoherent the link is.... if it's that obvious, the opposition should point it out, not rely on me to intervene and make that evaluation on my own.

Debate as an activity is incredible. Obviously I'm biased but I genuinely think it's the single best thing high schoolers can do with their time. If you're reading this you're probably a nerd or a competition freak (or both) but you also should be proud that you are involved in this thing we do. It makes kids smarter, more confident, better at speaking, better citizens, more critical of the world and its power structures while also more open to alternative ways of thinking.... and it's exhilarating and fun! If I could just coach debate all day I'd take that job in a heartbeat. I often find myself getting emotional when judging high-level debate rounds because of the talent, passion, prep, and dedication in front of me, and I swell with pride when my debaters develop new skills and deploy them.

Feel like quitting debate because you don't think you're any good? DON'T! My first ever tournament I went 1-4 at the Des Moines Lincoln Railsplitter. Even worse, we started 0-4 and were power-matched against the only other 0-4 team at that point -- we only won because our opponents forgot what side of the topic they had chosen. I promise, it gets better. I have a team that went 1-5 and 0-5 at their first two bid tournaments in '22-23 who just picked up a PF Gold bid at Blake '23. Keep at it and you will blossom.

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to the national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions.

My favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and Oratory.

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

Tom Knoblauch Millard North HS

Devesh Kodnani Lake Highland Preparatory 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 25, 2023 at 12:55 AM PDT

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!

Adam Krell Southeast Polk HS

Lydia Magalhaes Indianola

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 6:36 AM CDT

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Lydiadddd Magalhaes Indianola

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 6:36 AM CDT

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Rady MAlcom Hire None

Elise Harmening Meintanis Homewood-Flossmoor High School

Katherine Mendez Hire 8 rounds None

Jesse Meyer John F. Kennedy High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:18 AM CDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case debate- Love it.

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

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

PF Debate

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

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

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

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

I appreciate unique frameworks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adrian Mitchell Johnston

Zach Morgan Lincoln High School

Mark Nachreiner Lakeville

Last changed on Tue November 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM CDT

I'm a parent judge for Lakeville Debate Team. I have been judging debate for two years. My experience lies within the realm of Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for both the local and national circuits.

Judging Preferences

I am not a fan of speed, you can talk as fast as you want, but I can only get so much on my flow. If I don't catch it, I do not flow it. I appreciate clear distinct voters. Analysis on evidence and arguments is appreciated. I understand just evidence, but you explaining why your evidence matters in today's round leaves less judge interpretation for me to deal with when the round is over.

SPEAKER POINTS

I judge speaker points a little differently by tournament depending upon the difficulty, but below is the general outline. I will tank your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents or your partner. I will also boost your speaker points, if you made the round enjoyable to watch and incorporated some humor.

24 or below: Something in this round has gone very wrong. Either something offensive was said or your evidence has been falsified. I am not a fan of either.

25: I couldn't understand a single word you said either because you were talking to fast or not clearly enough. The arguments made had a minuscule effect on debate and were not well presented.

26-27: You were an average speaker. Your speaking was easy to follow, but stumbling and repetition made it a bit difficult. What you were saying was clear and the arguments you were making were good, but weren't the end all be all of the round.

28: Your speech was well organized and easy to follow with minimal stumbling and repetition. Your arguments were structured with the importance and relevance made clear throughout your speech(es).

29: You were a very good speaker and I believe you and your partner have a very good chance of doing well at this tournament.

30: I think you are one of the best debaters I will hear at this tournament and made this debate very enjoyable to judge.

Baku Patel Urbana High School

Bryce Piotrowski Lakeville

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 2:57 AM CDT

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.

Daequan Poole Bettendorf HS 8 rounds

Chris Powell Millard West High School

Linda Ramseur Hire 8 rounds None

Elijah Rockwell Theodore Roosevelt High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 26, 2022 at 2:30 PM EDT

I am a former competitor in Minnesota and national circuit Extemp, OO, and Congress.

SPEECH

Extemp: Your task is to answer the question asked of you. To that effect, please have a clear, unambiguous thesis that is the answer to your question. Then, tell me the reasons why that answer is correct, or at least ought to be persuasive. I do not need soliloquies or sonnets buffering your argumentative substance. Be sure that all evidence and analysis leads back to proving your answer-thesis. Enunciate well, and be direct in your language. I might check sources, so do not make them up or snub their attributions. I will happily provide time signals and tell you your time if you request.

OO/Info: Please have a central claim in your speech. See advice from Extemp.

CONGRESS

I operate under the paradigm that Congressional Debate is about adopting a Congress's role: take the theatrics seriously, but only as they are helpful. Call each other Representative/Senator. Respect the rules of Parli Pro. Do not say 'contention' or read me a K/case from a PF round on the same topic. However, the theatrics of Congress is not an excuse to dilute or ignore the rules of argumentation. Use credible sources, articulate your thoughts and arguments in opposition/negation of the legislation, and provide reasonable impacts (see impact statement in PF/LD section).

PF / LD

I don't have a lot of explicit rules or preferences when I judge PF/LD. Do not yell at each other or me. Please do not make blanket statements or impacts unless they are absolutely true. Refrain from dramatic impacts that are only designed for theatre (WWIII, nuclear holocaust, the destruction of life as we know it, etc.). I will not give hand signs or signals for the time but know that if you abuse your time--by going over or telling me you have more than you actually do--it will reflect in your speaker points. Tell me when you are taking prep, so I am not aimlessly guessing your intentions. You do not need to sign-post your summaries/FFs/or rebuts; just start talking. I can handle speed, as long as you are clear in your enunciation. Please do not talk while a debater is presenting; use notes or telepathy.

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging preferences at appropriate times (before/after rounds, when you see me in the hallway).

Aarron Schurevich Millard North HS

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

LAST UPDATED: NOV. 4, 2023

My previous paradigm preferences are four years old at this point and likely outdated. I have deleted them for now.

I am likely much, much worse at flowing these days than I was when judging all the time. I have been a tournament tab resident for years on end now, and that likely means I'm not as up to date on new progressive developments in rounds.

Here's what I'll say:

- Don't treat me like I'm a dummy, but don't presume I understand everything you're saying. I need you to do the work of explaining arguments, articulating impacts, and explicitly weighing within the round.

- I expect that a PF team going 2nd will have a rebuttal that both answers the opponent's case and rebuilds their own. Any argument not addressed in the 2nd team's rebuttal is a conceded argument, and if the first team makes it a voter, that's likely ballgame (assuming there is offense on the argument for the 1st team).

- I'm watching everything, but if you don't make it matter, it doesn't matter.

- In PF, I'm not going to break my back to follow you at a thousand miles an hour, so if you're fast, I'll give you one verbal "CLEAR" in the round to let you know you're leaving me behind. I will not feel at all responsible for what you might think is a bad decision if the way you're speaking disregards my ability/inability to follow and flow you.

- I expect clear and explicit voters in the final speeches.

- I'm not at all impressed by debaters who are jerks to opponents. This is a community, and everyone in it should be a steward of that community. Decorum, in extreme cases, is a voting issue for me, and I do consider my ballot my greatest means of discouraging outlandish and abusive behavior.

- I want full text reading of evidence, not paraphrasing. Upon the request of the opponent, cards not provided in a reasonable timeframe will be disregarded as if they don't exist.

If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.

Spencer Sones Ottumwa None

Matthew St-Germain Edina HS

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 6:08 AM CDT

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

Lincoln Douglas:

Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

Shane Stafford The Blake School 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:36 AM CDT

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.

Sarah Swinton Hire None

Jonathan Torbert West Des Moines Valley HS

Noah Trujillo Hire 8 rounds

Ben Vaughan Millard North HS

Elijah Wyant Southeast Polk HS None

Login to Tabroom

The Paradigm at Dowling Catholic

2018 — Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges