I am an experienced parent judge. Please go slow and clear so I can understand what you're saying. Please don't use any discriminatory language.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

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

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

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Qualifications

None.

Updated PF Paradigm

Hello. I am a fairly inexperienced debate judge. I value clearly articulated contentions that are well supported with evidence. If you are going to talk fast I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Please avoid using debate terms or acronyms that a lay judge like me may not know. I will vote on what is said, rather than make inferences as to what you meant to say, so the more explicit in linking evidence to your arguments the better. Lastly, in your final focus I will vote on what you tell me so please clearly weigh impacts.

Tips toward securing my ballot:

· No one wants to see another debate like the 2008 P.F. Bronx semis

· If you’re going to run a logical fallacy please make it strong enough so that your opponents cannot identify & respond to it.

· ABSOLUTELY no Nietzscheism(s)

· Please refrain from overstaying your welcome in crossfire…

I am novice at Judging. I have judged a few PF tournaments but my technical knowledge of debate is limited.

I initially look for good communication, professional appearance and body language that shows confidence and conviction.

I look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. I prefer respectful debate, rather than someone rolling the other person by aggressive interruptions. I believe debate should be vigorous but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.

Since the rounds have limited time, if the debaters get hung up on 1 point going back and forth for too long, that distracts from the overall debate. I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument.

Lynda Cobb

Hi. I coach both middle and high school PFD and Congressional Debate as a volunteer. I was a policy debater.

I am a policy analyst and an editor.

Clash, persuade, funnel. I don’t mind observations, but don’t give me a ten-pointer and apply it to every argument. I do flow. Be CLEAR. Please follow the flow in your speech and sign post for me. If I am flipping pages to find where you are, it is generally not good for you. Please give me a framework- it doesn't necessarily have to be in case, but make it known soon so your narrative throughout the round can fulfill it.

I do have some troubles with evidence in PFD. It is generally cut to be conclusionary. Know the author, know why they are a better source than your opponent's evidence, know WHY they said what they said AND PLEASE TELL ME. That can be the BEST argument in the round.

After having judged quite a few national circuit rounds, there have been a few teams that go too fast. They spit out a number of poor arguments and win because the other team can't cover them all and the dumpers cherry pick and pull. I get it all down, but I don't necessarily grok all the arguments...mostly because they are a skeleton of an argument. Honestly, this makes me sad. At that point, it is not about persuasion and argumentation. And the thing is, these rounds had 4 smart people in them. They could have made great arguments. They chose to overwhelm rather than outwit.

Summary speech is REALLY important. It is the chance to play chess- very strategic. In Final Focus, tell me why your voters win the day. Shore up your warrants and weigh those impacts. I do enjoy some panache and humor.

Finally, don't be a jerk a.k.a. a contemptibly obnoxious person. In cross, lay your cards down. Being evasive makes me unhappy. If your opponent keeps asking and you keep evading, I will not let you win the argument you are hiding for later.

You are amazing for getting up early on a weekend to throw words at me. :)

Hi all.

Please speak clearly and concisely when presenting your arguments. Instead of relying solely on stats and quotes and spitting out a bunch of author names, it is much more persuasive when you do a cost-benefit analysis of each side and explain why your world is more preferable.

I prefer clearly explained warrants and well-reasoned analysis as to WHY and HOW your offense outweighs your opponents’. I am not a fan of speaking fast, so while I understand that speaking fast is a tendency for most debaters, please try to tone it down and speak clearly so it would be easier for me to follow. If you speak too fast for me to not be able to understand you, speaker points will be affected and so will your ballot.

Best of luck,

Naren

I debated PF for 4 years at Ardrey Kell both in NC and on the national circuit.

Now that my history is out of the way, basic info.

I'm tech over truth so if I have to vote off a terrible argument, I will, even if I hate it.

I love obscure, weird arguments as long as they have proper warrants. Please please please don't give me a weird argument for the sake of being "weird," if that argument has zero merit.

I am a "flow" judge so speed is fine, although I strongly discourage spreading. If you're speaking so fast that I can't understand, which is extreme, I'm just going to put my pen down and not flow anything till you slow down.

While I enjoy cross-fire and think it's the best part of a PF round, I'm not going to flow it, so if something important happened, make sure you say it in a speech.

While weird, obscure arguments are great, I'm not a fan of theory. While it does have a place in debate, I don't think it works with public forum because public forum, by definition, should be available for the public to watch and understand, and theory detracts from the public's ability to understand the debate. However, there is a caveat. If your argument is amazing and isn't just a way of confusing the other team or a hail mary, I will listen to it as long and I will factor it in.

Things I like to see in debates:

- Weighing: What you've (hopefully) heard from your debate coach every day since you've started debate, weighing is important. If you don't weigh, I have zero idea how to compare arguments, and I will come up with my own way of comparing arguments, which you probably won't like. So please weigh and I'll be more inclined to vote for you and give you high speaks.

- Summary/Final Focus connection: Everything that's said in final focus must have been said in summary. I don't care if you came up with the ultimate argument that can win every round in the prep time before final focus if it wasn't said in summary. Only exception to this is first final focus, which can respond to points in the second summary because, unless you can predict the future, in which case you should go to Vegas and stop debating, first summary can't respond to a speech that hasn't happened yet.

- Evidence guidelines: Don't just refer to evidence as the "AUTHOR" card, I rarely flow author names unless I feel the card is sketchy in some way. I will have no idea which card you're mentioning and will probably disregard what you are saying. Make sure, every time you mention a card, actually use that card by explaining the argument itself and why I should care about it, don't just reference it. If the card's not important enough to actually explain it, it probably won't matter for the debate either.

- Humor: Please inject some humor into the round. Nothing is more boring than a serious PF round. Roasting the other team is welcome, sarcasm is welcome, jokes are amazing. Successful roasts will be given +1 speaker points, however, if it is a bad roast, and I feel you interrupted the debate for no reason, -1 speaker points. If you are constantly funny, I will give you more speaker points.

Things I do not like to see:

- Rudeness, sexism, racism, etc: If you're being excessively rude or being discriminatory at all, I will give you a 20L regardless of whether or not you should have won the debate.

Speaker Points breakdown:

- 30: Amazing job at not only speaking, but also your arguments and reasoning. More likely if you are funny. (A+)

- 29: Probably the most common point level, still a really good job at speaking and reasoning. (A)

- 28: Tied with 29 for most common point level, above average job. (B)

- 27: Average job, one of speaking/arguments would be lacking a bit. (C)

- 26: Below average, possibly both speaking/arguments lacking. (D)

- 25: Large errors, considerably below average. (F)

- <25: I will almost never give points less than 25, unless you're being rude or discriminatory.

Finally, if you read this far, if you can incorporate a Marvel reference, specifically Black Panther, I will give you +1 speaker points. However, if I feel it was forced, you'll get -1 speaker points.

Have fun debating!

I have judged a couple dozen PF rounds and a handful of LD and speech rounds too. I am not a flow judge. I take good notes and enjoy a respectful and passionate round. I do not favor speed in speaking and if you lose me you will not likely win the round.

» Completed Cultural Competence Course «

- - - - -

I have judged speech and debate events for more than 15 years, and have been a coach for about 10. I primarily coach interp and public speaking events, but I've also judged Public Forum Debate for years, and assist with coaching PFD. I have judged final rounds of PFD and DUO, as well as many break rounds, at the National Tournament.

I do not judge LD, WSD or Policy.

General thoughts

No matter what event I judge, I will do my best to be as prepared, professional and fair as possible. I expect no less from competitors. If you are unprepared, exhibit unprofessional behavior, are sloppy or waste my time (or another competitor's time), you won't be rewarded. Be professional. Be present. Be courteous. You will not be rewarded for being rude.

Public Forum Debate

My approach to PFD is pretty traditional. Be clear! Convince me you should win. Because of my speech background, I value presentation. Yes, I want your words and arguments to bring me to your side, but how you say those things is important (vocal variety, emphasis, eye contact, gestures). As you present your case, you've got to convince me your arguments are the right arguments, and guide me through your case. Your presentation skills — or lack thereof — play a big role in this process. I also expect you to be professional in every aspect of the round; you should look and play the part. Abusive or overly aggressive language or attitudes will not be rewarded. And, if you never look up from your laptop, tablet or pad, you're missing an opportunity to sell me on your case.

I've heard PFD was never designed to be Policy. It started out as Ted Turner Debate. Extreme speed or arcane debate jargon or argumentation theory won't win points with me. I am looking for persuasive and logical arguments that are clear and accessible. If you speak so fast that I can’t flow your argument, then how can it be on my flow?

While your analysis needs to be solid, I do want good information. Support your arguments. Cite your facts; I want to know where your information comes from. Good information is important, and I don't like teams that cite only one or two sources over and over — or rarely cite arcane sources. Solid warrants and citations will be rewarded, assuming you link everything together.

I try to intervene as little as possible, and I will not discount an argument because I strongly disagree with it — as long as you can support it and I understand it. I value facts and will judge a debate based on the information presented — not my opinions. How well do you support your contentions? Do you have sufficient warranting? Clear impacts? Do you understand the resolution beyond what is in your cases? That's the information that will help you deliver solid blocks and control cross. Some judges discount cross; I don't. If you don't know the subject, this is where it will show.

Time yourself (and your opponent, if you want), but I will also keep time using a dedicated app. I'm not a stickler for time — if you go a few seconds over time to finish a thought or respond during cross, that is OK. Just don't abuse it. And keep those off-time roadmaps super brief.

Interp/speech

I realize I don't need a paradigm for speech events, but since competitors do occasionally ask, why not? Here are a few general thoughts:

» Delivery: Clear, fluid delivery, whether you're presenting an oratory or doing a character in a DI, is a must. If I can't hear or understand you, or clearly identify your characters, that's an issue.

» Oratories, Expos, Info: I look for an interesting topic, clear points, effective and persuasive speech, good support and fluid movement/gestures. For an Info, a clear, effective prop need not be complex or consist of 50 things. Sometimes, simple is best. Does it add to the speech? Does it help the audience understand the speech better? If it controls you, then it's not effective. Do not neglect eye contact with me and the rest of the audience. If you don't connect with me, how can I connect with your speech? Finally, why do I care? Why should the audience care? Bring it back to the audience and let us know why we should care. In an OO, you are likely advocating for something. Tell me why I should care, or at least listen. In an info or an expository, what's the impact? For example, if the extinction of a little bug will cause a bigger bug to also become extinct, that's impact. But it's not necessarily the final impact to the audience. Bring it to us: The extinction of this little bug will cause a larger bug to become extinct, potentially impacting our food supply. An informative should tell me more than how to do something; it should tell me something (or an angle on something) I didn't know. And then, it should explain to me why I (the audience) care.

» DI/HI/DUO/POI: A good piece that is cut tightly and effectively is a great start (don't underestimate the cutting). From there, I look for good, clear, distinct and effective characterizations (TIP: focal points may be somewhat ignored these days, but I'm one of those judges who still look for them, and I like good eye contact with the audience during narration), effective blocking and purposeful movement. Tech is OK, if it doesn't overpower the presentation but rather enhances the piece. For DUOs, tight cue pickup, distinct characterizations and creative blocking are rewarded. In POI, do the pieces continually support your argument or thesis?

A note about POI: Per the NSDA, "The use of a manuscript during the performance is required." I expect you to refer to your binder, turn pages and — if you wish — use it as a prop. Never turning the pages or looking at the binder is not what I am hoping to see.

» EXT: I look for clear structure, good support, good facts, fluid delivery. Answer the extemp question you received: Pivoting to some other angle of your preference won't be rewarded. Be sure, too, that I know your answer: be clear! Canned intros can work, but they need to be pertinent, and many are not. Sourcing is important; if you have (for example) three points, I'll look for two reputable sources per point. Varied sources work best and help support your overall argument. Do not neglect eye contact with me and the rest of the audience (if any). If you don't connect with me, how can I connect with your speech?

Final thoughts

Don't read too much into any of this. It's my opinion and opinions are cheap. At the end of the day, the most important thing is that your experience is fun and rewarding, and that we both learn something. If that happens, we were both winners.

Stay focused, and good luck!

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

Jonathan Peele
Director of Speech & Debate
Charlotte Latin School

Updated: January, 26, 2020

Public Forum Debate Paradigm
Emory 2020 update: I will drop you with haste if you run theory in front of me.

TL;DR - Explicitly weigh and you can go kinda fast.

If you don't do it I'll try to vote on the arguments allocated the most time in the round, but I reserve the right to decide what's most important all on my own in the absence of arguments about which ones truly are. I'm a moderate on speed; doesn't have to be conversational, but my flowing definitely gets weak at top speed. If you won't think me an idiot for admitting what is true of every judge, my processing of a few, well developed arguments will be better than many underdeveloped ones.

Random thoughts on the state of the art:
- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but I definitely think that's best practice.
- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.
- I won't charge either team prep when cards are called for, but your prep time does begin once you're handed the evidence. Hand your opponent your device with the exact content they asked for displayed.
- Paraphrasing isn't the devil, but be ethical. It's essential you have the underlying text readily available (per the rules, ya know).
- I think case disclosure is ok. I distrust that this is really about enhancing education and suspect it's more often about enabling a school's war room to prep everyone out. Please don't read me disclosure theory in PF.
- I'd rather not shake your hand. It's just too much.

Public Forum lives in limbo between its Policy and Lincoln-Douglas counterparts. Frankly, one of the great things about being involved in the event right now is the lack of choking orthodoxy (which paradoxically really only tries to be as unorthodox as possible) to which our cousins in CX and LD have subjected themselves. (What a fun sentence!) Directly charged with neither the task of advocating a plan to execute a policy nor with advocating a particular value structure, as an emerging community we are only just now figuring out how to articulate what exactly debaters are supposed to be doing in Public Forum rounds. I certainly do not have the definitive answer to that question, but my best description of the event is that it is meant to be a policy-rationale debate. Public Forum debate at its best calls for a momentary suspension of the considerations of exactly how (i.e., a plan) to execute a policy and instead debating the rationale for changing/not changing the status quo. Allow me to qualify: I am not suggesting that Public Forum should systematically exclude all consideration of how policy would be executed (occasional assumptions about how the policy would unfold in the context of today’s America have a place in-round), but rather I am attempting to define appropriate parameters for Public Forum. If you've made it this far, you might also find some thoughts in my LD paradigm useful.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
I have remarkably low-self esteem as a Lincoln-Douglas Debate critic. I think I’m a good coach and possess somewhat above-average intelligence, but the gobbledygook that passes for “debate” in most circuit LD rounds I’ve seen is either A) so complicated and over my head that I should rethink those assumptions about myself or B) such a poor excuse for an intellectually honest discussion of the resolution that I’m glad to be an outsider in your realm. If I’m in the pool at a meaningful LD tournament it means that I’m doing a coaching friend a favor, failed to successfully hire out my commitment, or a terrible mistake of some kind has been made. I will almost certainly look miserable at the back of the room. Because I am.

As terribly negative as that sounds, I do on occasion find Lincoln-Douglas debates to be fulfilling and invigorating. What is it that can make me happy? Well, I suppose that’s what you’d like for me to attempt to articulate here. So here I go.

Speed – This is usually the only thing you ask about before you start debating. I do not believe that rate of delivery must be conversational and I will try to keep up with you. My pen can reasonably keep up, but since I don’t coach LD at a circuit-level full-time, and since I haven’t read the theory/critical literature that you want to throw at me at 500 words per minute, I’m probably not going to be very successful in evaluating it at the end of the round if you do go circuit-fast. You’ll see the frustration on my face if you ever look up. I can only vote on what I was able to process.

Framework – I do need you to articulate some weighing mechanism or decision-making calculus before you hit me with your case. I don’t care what you call it or what form it takes, but it does need to be clear, and the less variables you put into it the more comprehensible my decision will be at the end of the round. I tend to prefer specificity in criteria. If you never address this then what choice do I have but to arbitrarily decide? By that I mean don’t just put some nebulous, overly broad value at the top of your case and then never reference it. That’s just some vestigial relic from the way things were in LD 20 years ago. Then you’ll need to win why it’s preferable to use your weighing mechanism. Then just evaluate the arguments in the round (that’s “link back” I think in your vernacular) by that standard. If you do these things well and in a manner I can understand, you’re going to win.

Theory – I have opinions about what debate ought to be. You have opinions about what debate ought to be. Everyone has opinions about what debate ought to be. They differ wildly. I suppose then that I’m obligated to evaluating your arguments about how this activity should take place and to being open-minded about what best practices really are. But like everyone else, I have my personal biases and preferences and it’s going to be difficult to dislodge me from them. I prefer straightforward debate with comparison of the impacts in a world for which the resolution is or is not true. Now, you’re going to read that and think that I’m some sort of horrible “Truth seeker” judge. No. I just want to hear a debate of the resolution itself, not an advocacy primarily about what the educational value of debate is, some tenuous application of fringe academic theories, or some significant variation on the resolution that you wish to debate instead. That means I’m highly likely to accept some very simple topicality analysis as an answer when your opponent does any of these things. I like the way Joe Vaughan put it many years ago in an old version of his paradigm (I liked it so much I saved it), “I am open to a variety of different types of argumentation (kritiks, counterplans, et cetera), but only if such positions are linked specifically to a reasonable interpretation of the topic and are not an attempt to fundamentally change the focus of the issues intended by the framing of the resolution. Arguments that are only tangential to the conflict embedded in the resolution and shift the focus of the round to the validity of alternative philosophies are difficult for me to accept if challenged sufficiently.”

Disclaimer – While I deeply value winning as a worthwhile goal of debate, I am still also responsible for being a (albeit flawed) role model and an educator. If you are so profoundly rude or callous towards your opponent, or anyone in the community at any time for that matter, I reserve the right to drop you for that. I don’t have to accept all possible behaviors just because this is a game where we play with ideas.

Policy Debate Paradigm
I know the names of all the stock issues. I am a native speaker of English. I promise to try my best to be attentive and fair. Those are the only possible qualifications I have to be sitting in the back of your room (at least at any tournament important enough for you to be checking here for a paradigm). Go complain to the tab room immediately. I already tried and they didn't listen to me.

Past School Affiliations
Director of Forensics, Charlotte Latin School 2013-present
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events, The Harker School, San Jose, CA, 2009-2013
Director of Forensics, Manchester Essex Regional HS, Manchester, MA, 2007-2009
Director of Forensics, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2002-2007
Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2000-2002
Student (Primary Event: Congressional Debate), South View HS, Hope Mills, NC, 1996-2000

Camp Affiliations
Co-Founder & Co-Director, The Institute for Speech and Debate, Boulder, CO, Charlotte, NC & Fort Lauderdale, FL 2013-present
Director, Congressional Debate & Individual Events, University of California National Forensics Institute, Berkeley, CA 2012-2013
Director, Public Forum Debate, Capitol Debate Institute, Baltimore, MD 2011-2012
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, Harvard Debate Institute, Boston MA 2010
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Boston, MA, 2008-2009
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2009
Director, Public Forum Debate, University of Kentucky National Debate Institute, Lexington, KY, 2008
Director, Public Forum Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2007
Instructor, Congressional Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2006
Director, Congressional Debate, Research Triangle Forensics Institute, Cary, NC, 2003-2005

I have judged speech and debate events for the past 13 years. My son was in Congress.

General thoughts

Regardless of the event, I expect professionalism and preparation from all competitors. Showing up unprepared or engaging in unprofessional behavior wastes your time, my time, as well as that of the other competitors and your coaches.

Public Forum Debate & LD

Although I’ve judged PFD more than LD, I feel comfortable with both events. I appreciate assertiveness but actively dislike aggression. Clarity is extremely important. Don’t be cocky: instead, try to convey how deeply you’ve researched the topic. I always leave my personal opinions on the topic aside in order to be fair to all debaters.

Interp/speech

I started off my judging career judging interp, even though lately I’ve been judging debate more. Regardless of the piece, you have to give your best when performing. Delivery must always be clear and interesting. Tech should be smooth and reflect the norms of the event itself (tech in DI is very different than tech in HI).

The best time to invest in a good internet connection was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

I'm a truth over tech parent judge with about 3 years experience, and fairly active in the season. I'm a lay judge that flows, but not to any internationally recognized standard, and definitely not in more than one color. My writing is scruffy, sometimes I can't read my own notes. If you see me drawing big circles or boxes, it's because someone just made some ridiculous claim, and it's rude to laugh - so I scribble a shape instead.

Triangle - only a Muppet would say that.

Rectangle - only a Muppet would believe that.

Oval - only a Muppet would have found this in the deepest parts of the internet and think it was worth repeating with a straight face.

I'm a scientist, a software engineer, and yes, that thing behind me is a tower made from IKEA lack tables holding two 3D printers.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

Hi,

My name is Sahaj Zalavadia and I am a sophomore at NC State. I participated in public forum debate at Myers Park High School for 3 years on the North Carolina circuit as well as the national circuit.

Since I have experience in debate, I can handle speed and understand technical terms. However, this does not mean you should speak extremely fast or spread to an extent that I can’t understand what you are saying. I will not flow any arguments that I can’t keep up with.

I believe crossfire can be extremely useful and teams should use it wisely. However, I will not flow anything in cross. If you think it is important you need to bring it up in a speech. You also NEED to be respectful during cross. Let your opponents ask questions and give them time to answer before you jump in. I know the difference between being slightly aggressive and straight up rude. I will cut speaker points if I feel you have been rude and will not tolerate any form of discrimination throughout the round for that matter.

Second speaking teams are not required to frontline in their rebuttal, but I highly recommended that you do so. Additionally, I prefer the quality of responses over the quantity of responses. 7 average responses to an argument sounds great but if you have 3 solid responses that are explained well and logical, then I prefer the latter.

Summary is probably the most important speech in the round. Both teams should frontline in summary because I will not allow new responses or arguments to be brought up in final focus. If you don’t frontline and the opponent's responses are strong then I will likely drop your argument. Turns count as offense for the other team so make sure you respond to them.

Off time road maps should only be used if you are doing something out of the ordinary. If you want time signals, please let me know before your speech. I will give a 5 second grace period for every speech but will cut you off after that.

General things I like to see:

• Signposting: Clearly label your contentions and arguments so I know what you are talking about. Make sure you tell me what part of the opponent's case you are responding to or what part of your case you are talking about as it makes it easier to follow the debate. Also, it can be hard to keep up with author names so try to give a short explanation of the evidence when using it or responding to it.

• Claim → Warrant → Impact. Your arguments must be well warranted with logic and evidence. There must be a link between the claims you make, the evidence you provide, and the impacts you show. I will not give you access to impacts unless I see a clear link with proper evidence and analysis. I will call cards if the round comes down to it so make sure you have full PDFs saved or the article pulled up.

• Weighing: You MUST weigh your arguments, specifically in summary and final focus. You need to tell me why your arguments are more important than the opponents and the best way to do that is by weighing. If you don’t provide a weighing mechanism, I will have to use the opponents if they provide one or I will have to come up with my own.

• Summary and final focus must be cohesive. There should be a connection between the two speeches. If you don’t bring up an argument in the summary speech, I will not vote for it even if it is brought up in final focus. The only thing you can bring up in final focus without bringing it up in summary is terminal defense.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before your round.