Tabroom.com

Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy

2020 — Durham, NC/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Isaac Appel Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 2, 2024 at 1:12 PM EDT

experience debating national circuit policy and public forum.

arguments are not arguments without warrants.

if all debaters in the round express a reasonable preference they would like me to adopt prior to judging the debate, let me know and I will adopt it; judge adaptation can go both ways.

speaker points are entirely subjective and arbitrary, and are likely mostly based on what side of the bed I woke up on (anybody who says otherwise is likely kidding themselves, or taking their jobs a little too seriously).

I am very expressive, it is really obvious when i'm vibing with an argument or when i'm frustrated with an argument. I think this is a positive in a judge, but apparently some find it frustrating, if you're sensitive about getting mild, general, mid-round feedback about your arguments in the form of facial expressions or nods, you should probably strike me.

I don't really understand why debaters demand analytics in the speech doc. The speech doc is for evidence, you are still supposed to flow your opponents speech. So if they ask for analytics you can just say no.

flowing:

Debate is a communicative activity and if you cannot adequately communicate to me why you win a round i'm not going to mine through the flow to justify voting for you. you have to win the round, not rely on me to win it for you in my RFD.

Take it down a couple notches speedwise, I've started to have difficulty keeping up in tech rounds. Remember to pause, differentiate pace between tags/card-text, and slow down on analytics.

In terms of rate of delivery (spreading), I will yell "clear" once if I do not understand you. If you do not become clear after that, I stop flowing your speech.

progressive argumentation:

the only rule that isn't up for debate is speech times, and that's just because I don't want to be here longer than I have to.

i'd characterize myself as a progressive judge. I was pretty deep into postmodern Ks when I debated and have grown to become highly appreciative of good theory debates. Doesn't matter how big your school is or how much resources your program has, you should be prepared to defend the rules if you want to enforce them in round. If you think a rule is good and is something we should stick to, you should be prepared to defend it. You should also be prepared to defend your representations and ideology that underlies your arguments.

literate enough about most K-literature to know when you are bastardizing your evidence, but non-interventionist enough to not care.

i find the insularity with regards to particular jargon in theory debates to be pretty exhausting, just because a team does not say the magic words "counter-interpretation" does not mean they do not have one. I judge the arguments by how they are argued, not how they are labeled.

evidence:

put simply: i don't care.

I judge based on what I hear. This means: I won't call for evidence, I don't care if your evidence is in "card" form, I don't want to be on the email chain, and generally care more about what your argument is than what your evidence says. Debate (especially PF) is about communication, and if your communicative strategy is dependent on me flowing your speech doc, strike me or adapt.

I don't care about evidence ethics, but am willing to begrudgingly vote on a well-explained argument as to why I should care.

Nadeen Atieh Cary Academy 5 rounds

Catherine Augustyn Hire 6 rounds

Jason Brent Hire 6 rounds

Christian Brown Hire 6 rounds

Collin Brown Hire 6 rounds

Bilal Butt Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 11:03 AM EDT

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.***

Sophie Carroll Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 16, 2020 at 5:01 AM MDT

Hi there!

I did PF for 4 years in New Mexico. I'm a pretty typical flow judge, although I've been in college at Duke for the past year and will probably be (a little) rusty.

If you both have framework, you need to prove why yours is better if you're going to continue to evaluate under it later in the round. Or, you guys could just follow one team's framework.

Sign posting is awesome! It can be hard to signpost absolutely everything, but it makes your arguments so much easier to understand and to flow through, and helps me figure out which of your opponents arguments have been contested.

Weigh! Honestly weighing is more important to me than the pure quantity of arguments you have left on the flow at the end of the round. More important points>a higher quantity of arguments.

Evidence–I definitely take evidence seriously, and feel free to call out opponents' evidence (the standard of evidence in PF can be pretty low). However, logical argumentation is as, if not more important that the warrant you provide for your impact and logic chains are what will make me believe your claims. Even if you don't have a ton of counter-evidence, logically fighting your opponent's claim can be really strong argumentation.

Speaker points / speaking–I can probably flow you if you go up to just short of spreading, but I think that debate should be a space where you learn argumentation skills for the real world, and speaking slowly enough that most people could understand you and process your claims will be more useful for you in the long run. You can still go faster than a dramatic monologue but make it easy for me to get everything you're saying because it makes your arguments stronger!

I'll do some feedback at the end of the round if we're not pressed for time, but probably won't give an actual RFD.

Good luck to both teams! Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round about anything.

Greta Chen Vestavia Hills HS 6 rounds

Sophie Cleghorn Hire 6 rounds

Maggie Coffey Salem (Salem) 3 rounds

Ilana Cuello-Wolffe Richard Montgomery HS 2 rounds

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 26, 2024 at 4:03 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Maaya Dev Cary Academy 5 rounds

Min Dong Northview High School 6 rounds

Anusha Dubey Ardrey Kell HS 6 rounds

Sirisha Durbhakula Winston Churchill High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 14, 2020 at 10:57 AM EDT

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. I can flow a round pretty well but am not a technical "flow" judge.

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about

Argumentation:

1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.

4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.

Evidence:

1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).

2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.

3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.

4. I am a strong believer in quality > quanitity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable, or just don't focus so much on evidence accuracy.

5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.

How to win:

If you do these five things better than the opponents, you will win:

1. CLEARLY identify the arguments in the round and which ones are important

2. WEIGH and preferably give me a weighing mechanism to warrant me voting off of a specific argument

3. EXTEND arguments and enunciate their importance throughout the round

4. ADDRESS all the arguments in the round, and highlight dropped arguments

5. TELL me a story/narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence

I follow the NSDA guidelines for speaker points. I will give 30s if I think you are one of the best I've seen.

Ryan Engen Taipei American School 2 rounds

Ozan Ergungor Taipei American School 2 rounds

Isaac Fan Hire 6 rounds

Aly Fiebrantz NSU University School 6 rounds

Brendin Flinn Huntington High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 3, 2024 at 4:47 PM EDT

Background: I've been involved in every area of debate for around 8 years now. I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS, WV) and three semesters of collegiate debate (Marshall University). I am currently a masters student in chemistry at Marshall University. My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience is in NFA-LD (single-person policy). I coached high school debate for four years during my undergraduate years in Huntington, WV (PF, LD, and Congress). Also broke LD at NSDA (senior, HS), NCFL (Junior, HS), and NFA nationals (Freshman, College).

NFA-LD

I'm fine with speechdrop or an email chain (brndn3379@gmail.com).

High level things for you to know about me: I'm out of the loop on the topic, so don't assume that I know topic specifics (except for the chemistry/physics behind nuclear weapons..). I can keep up with whatever pace you want to go at, but I don't flow off the doc (especially important for T shells and long analytics; if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it). Default competing interps on T/theory, default util, default layering for me is Theory/T > K > plan/CP. Conditionality is good (you can still run condo bad), multi-condo is probably less good. I find myself to be very tech > truth, but also find myself increasingly skeptical of bad arguments that are executed well (this hasn't changed my decisions as of yet). NFA-LD rules is a bad voter generally, but if you are going to use it, then please justify why I should care about the rules. I am probably going to be more tolerant of less serious arguments than most judges, but I'm not going to be happy if those arguments aren't at least executed well.

Disclosure is good, I ran disclosure theory, I will vote on disclosure theory, but a note from me is that I prefer disclosure shells to include in-round resolvability. Basically, if you include something like "if they agree to start posting starting with this round, I'll drop the shell" is what I like to see because I tend to think that 1 - it is the best way to get people on board with disclosure and 2 - there are small school debaters that genuinely may not have known about the norm or how to do it (I was one of them at the start of my collegiate career). It isn't a must (if you make arguments that the lack of disclosure skewed this particular round, that's sufficient for me to vote on disclosure anyways), but it is my general preference.

On T, I typically err on the side that potential abuse is sufficient to vote on T. Proven abuse is always more compelling, but I view T broadly as a test of what the topic should look like, not what it does look like. TVAs are also not essential, but can help for particular AFFs (ones that very much seem to be in the realm of the topic, but your interp seemingly excludes).

Most of the stuff in the below section for HS LD applies to NFA-LD for me, but feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

LD (HS, Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round in comparison to your opponent's framework. Also, please link arguments to both frameworks when possible, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument in the event you lose framework (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never debated skep/permissibility, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020/21/and 22 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. If you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x, then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it. Conditional Ks often feel like perfcons, but I'm not going to say anything if the AFF doesn't.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only respond to one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and permissibility are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments and the warrants are sensible.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: Much more likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, maybe not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (HS, Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All speeches must respond to the previous speech (except for the 2nd constructive, duh). Defense is not sticky, so respond to it. I'm fine with smaller responses and then blowing them up if your opponents go for that defense in summary/FF. Most specifically, FF should only extend from summary. If it wasn't in summary, it is not going to be on my FF flow. With all this being said, it should be obvious that it is best to collapse early in front of me (you realistically should be doing this in front of any judge, but whatever).

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use. Weighing is also important on T/theory, so if you choose to run those, I need a clear idea of why I should care about predictability/limits/ground/etc.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF (but not preferred at all, I am willing to vote on paraphrasing bad). Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me (by this, I mean being hostile about your questioning of my RFD. I am totally fine having a discussion about the round because that can be incredibly valuable, but I don't want an aggressive environment). I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

Helen Freeman Huntington High School 3 rounds

Anson Fung Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 2 rounds

Thomas Gill Richard Montgomery HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 4:55 AM CDT

I debated for 4 years at Blake and now coach for Blake. I previously coached at Potomac Debate Academy

Updated for UK 2024

Emails:

tmgill719@gmail.com

blakedocs@googlegroups.com

Note: I will not flow off your doc. It is your responsibility to communicate your arguments to me

Sending a google doc that is set to view only defeats the entire purpose of the email chain- I cannot verify if your cards are correctly cut, if you omitted context, etc if you do not give me clickable links. Especially with bracketing as pervasive as it is, please just send a Word file, pdf, or paste cards directly into the chain

General Philosophy

-I would generally describe myself as someone who believes in “tech over truth,” with the caveat that I need to understand your argument well enough to explain it back to you if I’m going to vote on it

-I am happy to listen to whatever you want to read, though I am most comfortable in topic-focused rounds (which include Ks that have specific links to the topic). I personally do not have much experience running or coaching K positions, but I know how they function and am happy to listen to anything as long as it is well warranted. Theory in front of me is fine too, though I don't like nitpicky disclosure debates (Open Source v First 3/Last 3 v Full Text) unless there is some egregious violation

-On theory more specifically, I generally believe that paraphrasing is bad, disclosure is good, RVIs are bad, and that reasonability > competing interps. None of these matter when I am judging, but these are my biases when it comes to theory

Things I Like

-Actual cards. PF evidence norms have gotten significantly better over the last couple of years, but there is still work to be done. Be able to produce whatever you are reading with full cites quickly.

-The split. I think it is necessary that the 2nd rebuttal goes back and covers at least turns, and ideally the best defensive responses. This not only makes the round more fair, but also is probably strategic for you

-Voting issues. This is just a personal thing, but I prefer for you to organize your summary/FF into voting issues. If you don't it's fine, but it is, in my opinion, an easy way to clarify the round and helping show me where you are winning and where you want me to vote. If you don't that's fine, just make sure your story is clear

-Signposting. If I don't know where you are on the flow I may not be able to follow you and will probably miss things. It's in your best interest to make sure I don't miss anything

-Weighing. I'll be the first to admit that as a debater I am not the greatest at weighing. Still, link and impact weighing can be easy ways to win my ballot. Tell me why your links/impacts are more important than theirs so I don't have to work through it myself. It'll make my job easier and make you happier

-Evidence comparison. If I'm presented with evidence that says that, for example, says the Arctic has huge levels of tension, and another that says that the Arctic is peaceful, I don't know how to resolve that unless you compare them for me (Dates? Authors? Warrants? Etc)

-Full link chains in the 2nd half of the round. Please tell me what the resolution means in terms of your links/impacts instead of just going into an impact debate. Too often link extensions are not very well explained or just assumed. Even if it is dropped, please extend the full link

-Consistency through Summary/FF. Your summary and final focus should be very similar and extend most of the same things. In order for me to vote on something it needs to be in summary, so your final focus shouldn't have anything new/pulled from before summary, except for maybe weighing but even then it's tough to win off of. 3 minute summaries means there has to be collapse, but offense has to be in both for me to vote

-I would ask that you extend defense in summary. I think extending your best defense is a good idea. It depends on the defense/frontlines whether I will let you extend from first rebuttal to first FF (to be safe always extend the defense you have time for). Defense MUST be in 2nd summary though

-Have fun and be yourself. If you are enjoying yourself, I will probably enjoy myself too

Things I Don't Like

-I have an extremely low threshold for responses on "death good" or "extinction good" arguments. I would rather that you just not read them

-Long evidence exchanges. Not sure why this is an issue, but it is. If you read a card in round, you should be able to produce it for me/the other team within a couple of minutes. If you can't, I'll probably be sad. This has gotten especially egregious in online debates and makes them drag on forever. I don't want to be chilling on a zoom for an hour and a half because teams can't produce the evidence they are reading

-Random debate jargon without explanation. "Uniqueness controls the direction of the link" may be true in the round and I know what you're saying, but explain to me what that actually means in the context of your arguments

-Fake weighing. Weigh on probability, time frame, magnitude, or pre rec. I guess I'll accept scope and strength of link as weighing mechanisms, but those are just other words for magnitude and probability. Anything else will make me sad

-Lazy debating. Interact with defense, don't just give me the argument that you have "risk of offense" and hope to win my ballot

-Extending through ink. If you don't clash/interact with your opponents' responses, but still extend your arguments, all it does it makes the round messy and harder to judge.

-Racist/sexist/homophobic and other hateful language and arguments. Debate is supposed to be educational and safe, and such language and behavior undermine that purpose. I will not hesitate to drop you if I feel like it is necessary

If anything is unclear/you have additional questions, feel free to email me at tmgill719@gmail.com

Heath Hair Apex Friendship High School 5 rounds

Max Hardt The Potomac School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 5, 2020 at 10:38 AM CDT

https://gph.is/2HThgly

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

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

Things to Remember…

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

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

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

Codey Hawkins Carrollton 6 rounds

Callan Hazeldine Hire 6 rounds

Debora Henderson Jack Britt HS 6 rounds

Ying Huang Montgomery Blair 4 rounds

Ella Icard Hire 6 rounds

Ankit Jajoo Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 16, 2019 at 2:58 AM EDT

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!

Archana Jayasekar Ardrey Kell HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 14, 2020 at 3:59 PM EDT

Regarding my history in debate, I competed in PF for 4 years at Ardrey Kell High School on the local and national circuit, and was a co-captain my senior year.

In terms of what I look for in making my in-round decisions, some things to keep in mind would be:

Make sure you are speaking articulately/clearly. I have no problem with moderately fast paced speaking, but I would rather you prioritize enunciating and speaking loudly with clarity. AVOID SPREADING!
Always signpost, especially in rebuttal. Makes it easier to keep track of the flow of the round.
If you are speaking second in the round, I expect part of your rebuttal to refute the first speaking team’s rebuttal as well.
Avoid being rude in and out of crossfire.
Make sure to evaluate points appropriately in Summary and Final Focus (this plays a major role in my decisions). Be concise and clear about which arguments you win, why, and what voter points I should consider the most important when filling out my ballot.
Everything discussed in FF must be initially brought up in summary.
ALWAYS WEIGH AND EXPLAIN IMPACTS. It is much more convincing to me as a judge to determine the importance of an argument with impacts as opposed to you blurting out random statistics. Not to say that facts and figures are not important, but I would rather you persuade me with explanations of why the statistics matter as opposed to just saying they exist.
Don’t forget to extend arguments that you believe are key for your side winning. Also, address all arguments that are presented in the round while calling attention to dropped arguments, etc. in your final speeches.
When referencing a card, state the actual argument or topic rather than just referring to an author's last name. I won’t flow every author name you bring up, so be sure to explain which argument you are discussing and why it holds importance.
In terms of evidence, I do believe in quality > quantity. Explain to me why your evidence outweighs theirs, don’t just state that you win the round because you have more evidence. And obviously don’t exaggerate or lie about any parts of your evidence.
Lastly, I love when debaters bring humor into the round. So making a funny joke or reference to a tv show or old ABC family movie within the round won’t sway my decision, but will definitely reflect positively in your speaker points :) However, I will deduct points if your humor is irrelevant/forced or unnecessarily interrupts the round.

George Jiang Montgomery Blair 3 rounds

Mike Kacher Apex Friendship High School 5 rounds

Mubashshir Khan Cary HS 1 rounds None

David Kinane Montgomery Blair 2 rounds

Bob Kingery Research Triangle HS 3 rounds

Alex Knott University School 6 rounds

Charlotte Kohn Charlotte Catholic HS 6 rounds

Smitha Krishna Cary HS 6 rounds

Sidharth Kulgod North Mecklenburg HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 19, 2019 at 11:01 AM EDT

I like when you talk good.

I'm just kidding! I did Public Forum Debate for 4 years (I went to NSDA Nats and CFLs) and several tournaments in Lincoln Douglass as well. I know how it goes so do your thing. But while you're doing your thing, here are a few things to keep in mind.

If you're in PF

1. The Constructive

Talk fast if you want, but this is your first impression to the judge and it is an opportunity to seem professional and prepared. I don't care if you mess up, but try to be clear.

2. Cross Fire/Grand Cross

keep it clean

3. Rebuttal

Sign post! Sign post! Sign post! The difference between an average second speaker and a first class second speaker is their organization. This is a very simple, yet incredible effective technique that will undoubtedly help me as the judge understand your responses and will increase your chances of winning me over. (One of my favorites include NC States 2017: "My opponents First Contention is essentially an April's Fool Joke for three reasons..." - me)

In addition, I think it's cool if you create observations that serve as a way to narrow the round or create some sort of burden for the opposing team (the burden should be reasonable and please explain it).

Finally, its pretty baller for a debater to respond to specific pieces of evidence by name. (Example: the Pearson evidence is extremely problematic because...)

4. The Summary Speech is very important

Personally, I believe most rounds are won in the summary speech. Feel free to respond to as much as their rebuttal as possible but... I believe your Summary speech should include voters and extensions of your offense and defense. Defense should be extended by the first speaking team and second speaking team in summary. Ideally, the perfect summary speech should have two voters. One that extends offense (an argument from rebuttal) and one that extends defense (an argument from case). 3 voters are okay, but it'll be busy. I'm looking for some sort of collapse; I really want you to GO for something!

5. Final Focus

I don't really care for this speech, but unless something wild happens in Grand Cross, your final focus should be similar to Summary. If you try to bring up some new stuff I will hate you and I will get BIG mad.

6. Extending Arguments/Evidence

If you are attempting to extend something from rebuttal to summary for example, do not just throw numbers and impacts at me! If you want to extend an argument, begin with the tag line, this will serve as your claim (extend contention 1: Blah blah). Next, extend the impact and warrant (When you Blah Blah, Blah Blah happens BECAUSE *insert warrant*). This order is my personal favorite, but if you get the idea you can add your own twist.

Mark Lavender Apex Friendship High School 1 rounds

Emma Lee Charlotte Latin School 6 rounds

Bill Liebler North Mecklenburg HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 10, 2020 at 5:36 AM EDT

I am a parent judge, but am experienced in judging LD and PF. I’ve also judged speech events. I have a few criteria to highlight which are focused on debate vs. speech events.

· Speak at a pace where you can be understood. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow the debate whether it is LD or PF. I don’t understand the logic behind Spreading as a reasonable approach to a debate, unless your life goal is to be an auctioneer, but they can generally be understood. If you are going to fast I will drop my pen and stopping taking notes. This will impact speaker points and may impact the outcome of the debate because if I can’t flow one side of the debate my only option is to award the win to the person or team that can be understood.

· Spirited argumentation is a fundamental part of a debate and I’m comfortable with passionate clashes, as long as they are executed in a civil manner. Please do not personally attack your competitor(s) as that will result in loosing points for that round. I’m ok with some interruptions during Cross but will stop either or both teams if excessive.

· Please don’t play the “my card is better than your card and thus judge you must vote Aff or Neg”. I understand using counter evidence to weaken your opponent’s case and strengthen yours, but simply saying Card X trumps Card Y with no further explanation as to why that is the case will not enhance your argument’s credibility.

· Try to research your sources and find ones with counter ideology that also support your arguments. For instance, if you use the Cato Institute as a reference understand that is a Libertarian focused organization and you should look to something like the Brookings Institute, a more Democratic leaning organization, as a source to see if you can find something that would agree with the position of the Cato Institute.

· Have a framework for your arguments regardless if you debate LD or PF. You need the structure to be able to position your arguments in a way that can allow me as a judge to fairly flow the debate and determine if your opponents did or did not address your criterion and contentions. Cards should be carefully selected to support your positions and be readily available for your competitors to review when called.

· If you ask for a card, I will not count the time taken to find the card and present as prep time but will start prep time once the card has been given to you to review.

· If you are using an electronic device for opening speeches or to hold your evidence, please make sure you have properly charged it between rounds so you can provide evidence if asked by your competitors.

I appreciate that you are taking your time on weekend to compete and will do my absolute best to fairly judge the debates (or speech events if necessary), provide Reasons for Decisions that are concise but helpful in understanding why you won or lost, and will provide feedback to each person/team as well. I take my role as a judge seriously, but also recognize that these events are also supposed to be fun. So please come into the rounds with a positive attitude about the debate, treat your opponents as you would want them to treat you, and be respectful of me as a judge. I too am investing my Saturdays in you and your “sport”.

Mingqun Lin Dublin Jerome High School 3 rounds

Andrew Liu Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 11, 2023 at 5:23 AM EDT

Put me on the email chain: andrew.y.liu@duke.edu

Hawken School – Policy Debate 1A/2N

Novice NATO Topic Notes:

1. I'm about to graduate with a degree in biomedical engineering so I should be familiar with most of your biotech arguments. If you have questions about a technology, I'm happy to help answer some of them.

2. That being said, i haven't judged this topic before so please be clear/consistent with terminology especially if non-biotech

Policy Paradigm:

TL;DR:

1. Don’t assume I’m familiar with every detail of the topic

2. Tabula Rasa, Policymaker

3. Truth > tech: I have a higher threshold for giving an argument full weight than your typical tech judge

4. I feel like I’m a pretty slow flower so don’t speed through your tags and authors

5. What I'm most comfortable evaluating: Impact Turns > Topic DA > Advantage CPs > T > Politics > PICs > Topic K

6. What I probably would enjoy hearing: Impact Turns > Advantage CPs > Topic DA > Topic K > T > Politics > PICs

7. Cheap shots are lame

8. K FW is a pretty convincing argument to me

Topicality:

T is a great debate when done correctly. In general, I prefer limited topics (despite consistently running fringe affs as a debater). When doing T debate, make sure there is clash on the standards debate.

DAs:

DAs were my bread and butter. I mostly ran politics DAs in high school sadly (education and immigration weren’t the best for policy style). Politics is a generally boring scenario that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. That said, politics debates generally shine with internal link and impact debates, so do that well. If you can, read unique DA scenarios.

CPs:

Case-specific CPs are probably some of the most convincing and interesting arguments to me. I’m also particularly fond of advantage CPs and feel like they need to be read more in debate. CPs need a solvency advocate to at least the same level of specificity as the aff. PICs are generally unconvincing to me usually due to lack of specificity of solvency, competitive issues of certainty/immediacy, and undercoverage of the net benefit.

Kritiks:

Ran generic cap, security, and biopower kritiks, but the only pomo I’ve run is Vattimo/Heidegger. In general, I struggle to understand Ks within the limited scope of debate (most likely since I haven’t extensively read the lit). Framework is critical to K debate and I need to understand how framework affects my evaluation of the K proper.

K Affs:

Sorry, I don’t think I’ll be good for you if you’re interested in this section. If you still do end up with me, some important info about my preferences. I think the T/framework debate is absolutely critical, so your responses need to substantively engage on the flow rather than blanket dismissals. I’m also not really convinced by “FW is racist/exclusionary” arguments.

Theory:

Theory is pretty unconvincing to me and falls in the realm of cheap shots 95% of the time. I won’t vote on your blippy severance, disclosure, or aspec theory generally. I like neg condo.

Other Things:

Low risk = No risk

Death is bad

Fairness > Education

Limits > Aff Ground

LD Paradigm:

TL;DR:

You can reference my policy paradigm to see what matters to me

PF Paradigm:

TL;DR:

1. I did policy debate, so you can basically run anything. Refer to the policy paradigm if you need more info about that

2. Tabula Rasa, Policymaker

3. Truth > Tech: I have a higher threshold for evaluating an argument compared to your typical tech judge.

4. Impact Calc is important if you don’t want accidental judge intervention

5. Apparently PF does paraphrasing instead of direct quoting, please don’t

6. I flow like a policy debater so if you don’t signpost then I’m lost

Progressive PF:

Since it seems like lots of PF debaters are facing an existential identity crisis regarding their event post-2020 TOC, I'll answer concerns about how I'll evaluate progressive arguments in PF here. The short answer is I'm 100% ok and, in fact, happy to evaluate "progressive" arguments in PF barring the concerns elaborated on further down the paradigm. I'll run a line-by-line for why many arguments against progressive debate are wrong:

1. PF is meant to be "public"/PF is not policy

This is not responsive against the merits of progressive arguments. It's equivalent to saying the DPRK is democratic not totalitarian. Additionally, the existence of policy does not mean PF should forego good norms. Also, the structures of PF and policy are so significantly different that regardless of adopting some policy norms, they will remain distinct both in topic education and substance.

2. Progressive debate kills substance

This lacks a lot of nuance considering progressive arguments such as CPs and plan texts access a unique solvency lit base that is otherwise inaccessible in traditional PF. Disads also access unique impact scenarios that probably should be considered, and Ks also interrogate and reveal unique areas for topic education. Traditional debate also doesn't disappear because progressive debate becomes more popular, local circuits will always remain lay compared to the nat circuit.

3. Progressive debate hurts small schools

Probably false too. Access to unique methods of argumentation such as theory, topicality, and Ks allow for teams that have limited access to prep and time to remain competitive against teams with massive programs. Theory and topicality also reproduce norms that protect teams with limited resources from being overwhelmed.

Why is progressive debate good:

1. It fosters good and ethical norms:

Evidence norms are abysmal in PF since paraphrasing and bad citations are rampant. Lack of disclosure hurts pre-round prep for small programs without massive repositories of backfiles. PF is also an event which is disproportionately white and male and it reproduces those biases both in round outcomes and overall success at the event. These are all issues that are difficult to combat from just going to Tab since norms towards these issues haven't changed. Theory and Ks provide the in-round pressure to adjust debate norms for better evidence ethics as well as improving the debate climate for smaller schools and marginalized debaters.

2. It provides depth and breadth of education:

Traditional case debates don't get wiped out in progressive argumentation. Arguably, topic education is deepened when you allow plan advocacy for cases which provides access to solvency lit that's otherwise inaccessible which is depth to the topic. But even if breadth is preferable in PF, the existence of CPs, DAs, and Ks provide breadth of education and strategic diversity. Considering my experience judging PF has mostly had the same pieces of evidence re-read between rounds with the exact same contention structures, I think improve the depth and breadth of education would be quite good for the PF ecosystem.

You may think I'm biased due to my history as a policy debater, and you'd be right. But there's a difference between having bias and having ill intentions. I've been on the receiving side of hard and disappointing losses because of mishandled theory and Ks, and I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge my distaste towards those arguments. However, I do think it's still important to recognize that these arguments have an important place in checking back biases and bad norms. While I no longer competitively debate, I do still judge from time to time. As a judge, these are some of the arguments that I believe would make rounds more interesting personally as well as for many debaters. If you'd like to convince me otherwise then go ahead.

Topicality:

I’ll be honest, idk how a T debate actually functions in PF considering there (usually) aren’t plans in PF. In policy, T is a question of the advocacy not the impacts so it’s illogical to argue someone’s impact scenario is untopical. If you can articulate how a team’s advocacy is untopical and can do a good comparative standards debate, you’ll be in a good position with me.

DAs:

I’m really glad that PF is starting to use more DAs rather than just case offense/defense for argumentative diversity. DAs were my favorite argument in policy debate, so if you run them well I’ll be happy.

Kritiks:

I have two big concerns with Ks in PF. The first is that I’m just, in general, not a great person to run Ks with. My experience is limited to cap, biopower, and security generally, and they were not staple arguments. I don’t read a lot of lit either, so my comprehension of the K may not be great. Secondly, I frankly don’t think PF can get in enough depth to run Ks effectively. Policy has a total of 26 minutes of neg speech time and, even then, it’s difficult to substantiate Ks well. I generally feel like PF could only run smaller satellite Ks effectively, but I may be proven wrong.

Adam Longley Hire 6 rounds

Albi Manfredi Trinity Preparatory School 3 rounds

Hunter Martin Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Myles Mason North Mecklenburg HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2019 at 1:59 PM EDT

Hey guys, I did PF for about 3.5 years with decent success on the local and national circuit, so I know how the debate will go. Also, you can go any speed just don't speak to the point of spreading. Don't be nervous I don't expect you to be extremely serious at all times you can crack a joke before the debate begins or comment about my Mamamoo or Playboi Carti stickers on my laptop. Let's go over each part of the debate and what I value:

General Rules

*I will disclose at a tournament if and only if they allow it but always feel free to ask me about the rules

*There are a lot of germs out so fist bumps or air fives are greatly appreciated

*Please do not cap (lie) about info and create a situation where officials need to included in

* Please have your cards ready to be called if needed because I do not enjoy spending a minute for a team trying to find a card that they have probably been using for two tournaments before this situation

* If you want to wow me knowing the in's and out's of your information i.e sources and dates is Pog ( really good ), knowing the opponent's sources and calling them out is an absolute 200 IQ/5Head play and I will be in awe of the brain waves radiating from your cranium

* Even if the debate is sloppy still fist bump, shake hands, or acknowledge the work the everyone has put in to get to this point

Debate Rules

1. The constructive

Please speak decently loud because my hearing is the best, but do not yell at me. If you want some more closure you can ask me a good pitch before the debate. Also, it is okay if you stumble on words just please recover and do not panic because of a mistake we are all human.

CrossFire/Grand Cross

Please be respectful, one of my biggest pet peeve during the debate would be when someone would filibuster and complain that their opponent would not let them respond or just generally speak over there opponents in a rude manner. With the previous statement in mind do not be passive during the debate because confidence is key and is a general component for me to vote for you (remember as a judge I'm a blank canvas and you are the artist). The order for cross should be question-answer-question-answer, but if the opposition does not have a question exploit that weakness and continue on. In grand cross please don't introduce new arguments or read new cards because they will not be weighed are a waste of time.

3. Rebuttal

PLEASE SIGN POST! Although im pretty leaniant with mistakes during the debate this one of skills that I value the most because if an argument is being fed towards me during rebuttal especially without structure I might miss it or not understand it fully which would be disadvantageous towards you. Also, I like off time roadmaps even if the direction of the rebuttal is predictable because they give me a break to ingest fully what is to come. Finally just because you overload me with a lot of reasons against your opponent's case does not mean you just completely eviscerated them, unless they fail to recognize them or they are quality arguments.

4. Summary

Since I did first speaker for all of my tournaments that I competed at except for about four, I have grown to realize how important the summary is and how hard it is. You guys have a little bit of a break with 3 minutes, because back in my day we only had 2 minutes ( I wanted to have an older voice for this part but this is on a laptop and I'm not reading out loud to you and I just graduated high school this year so I thought it was funny but to be honest it was not). I really need the 1st speakers to pop off and not int (INTentionally feed/ do bad) for the summary. The summary is where I will be weighing the majority of the debate on. For the summary I need the 1st speakers to please WEIGH and show me why you win and the other team loses. ALSO, I still need you to signpost through all speeches.

5. Final Focus

For the 2nd speaking team please do not say any new arguments that can not be responded to by the opposition. Flow over the voters to which should have been introduced in the summary and generally collapse on the debate with telling me why you won. To be honest, just take a deep breath and go crazy; and I believe you will be successful.

Brennan Maynard Northwest Guilford HS 6 rounds

Anamika Mazumdar Ravenwood HS 3 rounds

Declan McBride SpeakFirst 4 rounds

Jeremy Metz The Potomac School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 2:29 PM EDT

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

Jeff Minemier Ardrey Kell HS 6 rounds

Jakob Nusinov Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 8, 2022 at 4:42 AM EDT

Hello,

I am from North Carolina and have competed on the Carolina West circuit for 3 years. Thus, I can flow almost anything that I can understand. I am fine with speed but if you are excessively fast than I will gesture to slow down (don't be startled, it typically means I actually am interested in what you are saying, I just am missing key points). Moreover, this means I can pick up on the jargon that you will use in round, but if I am really lost I will give you a very confused look. Below are things I want and don't want in a round.

UPDATE: I am a sophomore in college now, so I am just a bit rusty. Please note that I am not in my prime anymore :(

UPDATE 2: I honestly do not know anything... go easy

UPDATE 3 (Oct. 8 2022): IT HAS BEEN SO LONG PLEASE HELP.

Things that will get you speaks and wins:

1. Argumentation. I will vote on arguments NOT on presentation. Please, please, please extend your arguments properly, preferably with cards and impacts, it makes them easy to vote for.

2. Weighing/Framework. If you can tell me WHY I should vote for economic benefits over lives lost with a good reason, I am fine with signing the ballot that way. However, that doesn't mean you can just tell me in final that lives don't matter and expect an easy win because you lost the lives argument.

3. Signposting/Roadmaps. Please use these techniques in order to make it easier for me to flow your speeches and apply your arguments correctly. If I have to guess on where your turn belongs than I will probably get it wrong and you won't be happy.

4. Crossfire. This is not vital to the round and will not get you a win unless it is critical to the round. If you absolutely slay your opponent in cross, great! I love a bit of humor, banter, and even satire in cross. I think it makes the round more enjoyable, and therefore will give you a bump in speaks. If something really critical comes up in crossfire and you think that I should flow it, please address the idea in the following speech.

5. Evidence. This is obviously the most important part of Public Forum. A few key issues with evidence. One, please at least tell me the last name of the author and date of the card in case and in subsequent speeches. Also, if you are trying to indict a piece of evidence, expect me to call it if it is really important to the round or if that is your only response to their entire argument. Lastly, please give me the reasoning and warranting behind the card instead of just saying "we are right because Callan Hazeldine said so"

Things that will lose you the round and get bad speaks:

1. Being A Jerk. There is a fine line between standing your ground in cross and defending your time to speak and steamrolling your opponent. Just be careful (profanity, abusive, or harsh language). Also, any racist, xenophobic, sexist, or any discriminatory remarks will almost certainly lose you the round and possibly have consequences beyond that.

2. Summary/Final Discrepancy. If your summary goes for your C1 and the final goes for C2, I may throw a fit. I know that the summary is one of the most difficult speeches in the round, but it should match the weighing/impacts given in final. If these speeches don't give me basically the same narrative, or at least FF be a part of the summary narrative, I will have a hard time signing my ballot for you.

A couple more key pieces of information:

1. Please have your evidence. I understand that it can take a minute to try and find anything that they call for but if it lasts more than 3 minutes, I will begin to become skeptical. I probably will not interfere but I will definitely not enjoy my time being wasted.

2. Timing. I may time if the round really needs it but I much rather prefer that the opponents keep each other in check with time. For prep, please take care of that as I will be evaluating the flow during that time, not counting your seconds.

3. Have Fun! Remember, this event is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone (including you!). I would love to see your passion on the topic and I know how intense a debate round can get. However, please understand this community is a second family for some. While the topics and solutions we debate are super important and have real-life consequences, I do not think that rules out enjoying the round.

4. About the decision. I will try and give my RFD at the end of every round I judge because I prefer to have it still fresh in my mind while also giving you the opportunity to ask questions. So, if you feel like I missed something or want clarification, then please feel free to ask questions, bring up concerns, or anything you feel as if you want to talk to me about. Moreover, if you want more detailed feedback (specific speeches, case ideas, etc.) then go ahead and either meet with me later in the day or get my contact info. I love this event with all my heart and all I could ask for is to see some great debate. I want to help you all learn and get better so take advantage of that.

Colton Reese Ortiz Hire 6 rounds

Isaiah Paik University School 6 rounds

Peter Paik University School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 3:54 AM EDT

UPDATED slightly on 3/2/24:

PLEASE EMAIL ME CASES BEFORE THE ROUND SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FOLLOW THEM: ppaikone@gmail.com. THANK YOU!

Personal Background:

Since 2023, I am the speech and debate coach of George School in Pennsylvania. From 2000-2023, I was a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.

For online debate:

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.

Rodney Patterson First Colonial HS 6 rounds

Michael Patti Thales Academy Rolesville Speech and Debate 3 rounds

Jonathan Peele Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 25, 2024 at 7:34 AM EDT

Jonathan Peele
Director of Speech & Debate
Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation
Updated: July 25, 2024

Public Forum Debate Paradigm
Most important: 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; you don'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.

Miscellaneous thoughts on the state of the art:
- Public Forum's origin story was all about correcting the excesses of LD and CX to provide a format of debate that was accessible to citizen judges and students who might not be initiated in the national circuit club. For that reason, I will drop you with haste if you run theory in front of me, assuming your opponent lodges even the slightest response to it.
- 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 30 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 likes the way Joe Vaughan had 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 Program Affiliations
Director of Speech & Debate, Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation, Plymouth Notch, VT, 2024-present
Director of Speech & Debate, Charlotte Latin School, Charlotte, NC, 2013-2021
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events, The Harker School, San Jose, CA, 2009-2013
Director of Speech & Debate, Manchester Essex Regional HS, Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA, 2007-2009
Director of Speech & Debate, 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, Charlotte, NC & Fort Lauderdale, FL 2013-2021
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

Ashna Ram North Mecklenburg HS 6 rounds

Rahul Ramesh Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM EDT

Hey everyone! I did Arizona PF for four years, Congress for two, and sprinkles of other events (so yes, I know what a kritik is). I've also judged "full-time" in North Carolina for four years now, mostly PF and LD. I expect a respectful debate from both sides.

For PF, I'm pretty standard. Make sure to spend as much time as possible in your rebuttal speech attacking the opponent's case with specific attacks relating to points they brought up in constructive.

For LD, I'm ok with progressive stuff, but since all my experience is with PF and traditional LD, know that you're taking a risk there. If you do end up going progressive, please be clear as to why I must vote for you! Spreading is fine, but if you're going to talk super fast, please flash drive over your speech so I can follow along.

I vote off the flow, but make sure to weigh impacts in your final speeches - a little bit of narrative (just a little bit!) can go a long way into helping me understanding your side/arguments and voting for you. By narrative, I mean high level analysis of the round, talking about the big picture and not getting too bogged down in the contention level debate (this especially applies to the last few speeches for each side).

My general rule is "quality over quantity." You've probably heard that a billion times, but I truly have trouble understanding quick, one sentence responses to arguments, especially in rebuttal. Take time to develop each response, giving me the context and all of the logic behind it, instead of saying a couple words and expecting me to do the analysis on my own. Also, the more counter-intuitive/non-obvious/unique the point you're trying to make is, the more you have to "gift-wrap" it - I'm willing to listen to almost everything but I need a little more help on arguments that aren't stock/easily understandable. Again, I want to hear the entire logical picture from the debaters, instead of having to fill in gaps on my own. I specifically like listening to how different responses and contentions interact with each other (i.e. grouping after rebuttal speeches). That being said, if an argument is mostly there and is missing just a frivolous part I tend to be pretty sympathetic, but you don't want to rely on this.

For PF - I don't require 2nd speaking rebuttal to defend against responses in 1st speaking rebuttal, but I highly encourage it. I don't require 1st speaking summary to repeat attacks on the opponents case, unless 2nd speaking rebuttal defended their own case against the attacks.

Tashiana Reynolds Massey Hill Classical HS 3 rounds

Anand Saokar Lambert HS 6 rounds

Matthew Schaeffer Cary Academy 6 rounds

Nolan Schreiner Henry W Grady HS 6 rounds

Arun Sekaran National Cathedral School 3 rounds

Ahana Sen Hire 6 rounds

R.J. Shah Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 4:36 PM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

Background: I did PF for four years in the Texas and National Circuits. Qualified for TFA State three times and Gold TOC three times, clearing at both. I formerly coached for Strake Jesuit in Houston and served as the tournament director for the Strake Jesuit PFRR from 2018-2022. I was heavily influenced by policy debate, so I generally agree with their debate norms.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. I evaluate tech>truth only. I am tabula rasa, meaning you can read any argument as wild as you want and I will vote on it as long as it is warranted and not offensive. I mainly did LARP/traditional debate but also have experience debating theory and Ks, so you can run whatever you want. However, I only vote on arguments I understand, so I am more impressed by PF and policy-esque arguments more so than LD. Content wise, I strongly prefer in-depth substance over random off-case debate. I believe that my role as a judge is to be an educator and a norm-setter. In a nutshell, I take from Andy Stubbs in that I vote for the team with the strongest link into the highest layer of offense in the round.

Disclosure/Chains: Disclosing to the NDCA PF wiki is the only way to get above 29 speaks. Tell me if you disclose. If you are sharing docs or spreading, use Speechdrop, flash drive, or email chain.

Evidence: Cut cards > paraphrased. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if it is contested. For citations, I just need author name and year. Misconstruction of evidence will result in lower speaks, based on how flagrant it is.

Speed: Clarity>Speed. If you are clear, go as fast as you want. Slow down on author names, tags, and analytical arguments in case/rebuttal. Then, since I would be familiarized with your evidence, you can speed up summary/FF. Not the biggest fan of spreading; if you do, send docs. If you do spread, it must be cut card and not paraphrased evidence.

Style: Line by line debate only. Extend by author name and sign-post. Implicate all offense in terms of how it affects the ballot. Sign-post.

Speaker Points: Speaks are based off of in-round strategy only. Everyone starts with a 28 and I'll go from there. 29.0+ for disclosing only.

Misc: Speech times are set. One team is aff and one team is neg. I only vote for one team. I only down one team. No double wins or double losses unless instructed by tab. Speeches are set i.e. first speaker gives case and summary. Fundamental rules are set.

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

CX: I'm okay with open CX meaning your partner can join in to clarify answers. You can also both agree to use the rest of cross as prep time.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal just has to answer turns on case, not defense. Don't read a blipstorm of paraphrased responses or card dump; I either won't be able to flow it or won't feel comfortable voting on it. Not impressed by irrelevant DAs that don't actually engage the aff. Depth>Breadth. I like analytics especially when they implicate cards. You can read overviews, new advantages, add-ons, uniqueness updates, link boosters etc., but they must be based off of case or directly answer your opponent.

Summary: First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but must extend turns. Second summary has to extend defense and answer turns. Turns conceded out of second rebuttal are considered dropped for the round. Most (preferably all) new implications must be made in summary. I am fine with advantage add-ons and link boosters in summary, but I would like it more if these are read in rebuttal if possible.

Final Focus: This is the speech you call out drops and implicate the stuff extended in summary. Second FF should not have too many new weighing/implications. Anything outrageously new in 2FF will not be evaluated. It's subjective, but you'll know if something is too new in 2FF. Just weigh and implicate here.

[Part 2: Off-Case Debate]

General:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 very comfortable and 5 unfamiliar) of how I feel about judging these arguments:

Framework: 1; I like it. Introduce in case.

Kritiks: 3; No high theory. I like topical Ks. K affs and Reps Ks are fine too. I care most about the strength of the alt when it comes to Ks.

Theory: 2; My defaults are CI>Reasonability and no RVIs. Still tell me what I should prefer. I don't like friv theory. I default T>K.

T: 3; I default drop the argument. I default T>K.

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

Plans/CPs: 1; Tell me why the CP is competitive. Solvency advocates help. I don't like multi-planked CPs.

PICs: 3; Same as CPs but you must also provide a net benefit.

PIKs: 5; Not a fan. No experience with this.

Tricks: 5; Not a fan.

Non-T: 5; No experience with this.

Misc: I'm not too familiar with arguments like permissibility, skep, presumption etc. so I will try my best to evaluate them, but my understanding and threshold for response are fairly low.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

Christian Sheerer Hawken 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 16, 2020 at 11:24 AM EDT

Background:

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

Things I like:

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

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

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

Things I don't like:

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

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

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

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

Max Shenkman The Potomac School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 11, 2022 at 10:18 AM EDT

Contact me
If you have any questions about my decisions/debating in college/coaching/prep docs, send everything to.

Shenkmanmax@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round if my paradigm isn’t clear enough. I’ll tell the other team the same thing I tell yours.

Background
I’m a third-year out, debated for four years at a high level so I’m a flow judge. Did PF for five years, worlds for three, extemp a couple times and basic experience in a couple other random events. I did policy at wake Forest as well so I can keep up with whatever you read.

PF Judging
Run any argument with me and I’ll understand it/be able to flow it. Honestly I really don’t care what you run as long as it isn’t racist/sexist/homophobic etc.. If you for some reason don’t understand what that means feel free to ask me and I’m happy to clarify. If you run something that clearly does violate those rules I’m happy to drop you and I’ll fully explain myself.

Regarding arguments, I really don’t care what you run. I’m going to come into the round with as much of a blank slate as possible and am ready to hear what you tell me. Assume I have a good understanding of the topic, but if you tell me something I’ll assume it’s true unless challenged by the other team. If you read some new argument I haven’t heard before it won’t really change the weight of the argument in the round but it’ll incentivize me to listen closer to you and make the round more interesting. Probably reflected in speaks.

For speaking style, if you spread like crazy and aren’t clear then it’s not worth the effort for me. I want to hear some good rounds so pay attention to me as a judge. If you see me put my pen down (obviously harder virtually but same idea) and cross my arms/stop typing for a while it means I’m probably not flowing and you should do something to adapt. I’ll adapt to tournament rules regarding prep time/calling for evidence but as a basic rule if you can’t find a card within a reasonable amount of time I’m not gonna weigh it at all. That includes if you find it after the next speech.

How to win the round.

Like any other reasonable judge, weighing is by far the easiest way to my ballot. Please do your best to remember that there’s more than one type and level of weighing. As an example, if one team tells me that their impact is bigger but one tells me their impact is a prerequisite, I have no way to evaluate which is more important. Tell me how to weigh your weighing. That’s what the final speeches should really be about, especially final focus.

IMPORTANT - PLEASE ALSO REMEMBER THE ROUND ISNT JUST ABOUT ARGUMENTS. Are your opponents being assholes/didn’t disclose or whatever? Read an impact on the importance of debate and weigh it = pretty easy win if they don’t respond. I’ll literally listen to any weighing.

Another easy way to win the round is dropped arguments. But please for the love of god understand that I can flow. If an argument wasn’t dropped I’ll know that it wasn’t dropped. Saying that an arg was dropped after they read 12 responses isn’t a way to win the round and will probably lower your speaks. BUT EVEN IF THEY DO DROP AN ARG. IF YOU DONT WEIGH IT AND THEY WEIGH AN ARG I WILL VOTE FOR THE BETTER WEIGHING. TELL ME WHY YOUR STUFF MATTERS.

Speaks

tbh you probably won’t get a 30 or a 25. I’m generous w speaks but 30s are reserved for the best debaters and speakers. That being said, here’s how I give speaks. The metric is through devaluation, you’ll start with a 30 and they’ll drop every time you mess up. Below are the easiest ways for you to loose speaks and the amount you’ll probably lose. Also I’m fine w low point wins.

#1. Being a jerk to your partner. I really don’t care if one of you is better or more experienced with the other. Treat each other with respect and make sure that both partners are active in debate. If you don’t I’m more than happy to drop you 2-3 speaks.

#2. Being a jerk to the other team. That doesn’t mean don’t take control of cross or play the round strategically but don’t ruin the debate with aggressiveness. If you need an example of good control look back to Lake Mary Prep rounds. Just why be mean? I want both teams to walk out of the round feeling like it was a good debate either way. Loose 2 here

#3. Not speaking well. Yeah I mean this is pretty generic but it’s what most judges give speaks for. Just speak eloquently make sure I understand you and present your arguments well. 1-2 points

#4. Other stuff, idk goes round by round 1-2 points

Bob Shurtz Hawken 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:12 AM EDT

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Danny Siegel Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 11, 2020 at 6:04 PM EDT

Background

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

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

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.

General

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

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

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

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

Speed/Signposting

I can flow at just about any speed

However.....

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

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

Also....

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

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

How to get 30 speaks:

Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.

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

Ethan Silvey NSU University School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 17, 2021 at 6:19 PM EDT

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Cypress Bay High School in Florida. I'm currently a junior at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

I vote off the flow. Please weigh your arguments for me or do some type of framing, otherwise I will vote off a random argument and you will not be happy. Weighing isn't just saying why something is important, it is saying why it is more important than your opponent's arguments. It requires a comparison.

I am typically tech>truth if you aren't offensive and don't go severely beyond the limits of what I should expect to hear in a Public Forum round. If you are unsure if you are crossing that line, feel free to ask me before the round.

I will only evaluate theory if it is justified, don't read it just to win. Theory needs to be necessary. Essentially there needs to be blatant abuse for me to even consider theory as a viable route to vote.

I can handle moderate speed, but if you go too fast I will miss arguments. I won't be mad if you go fast, just know you are taking a risk in doing so. If its not on my flow, it is your fault, not mine.

Terminal defense made in the rebuttal gets extended on my flow most of the time. This however, does not mean that you can just not extend any defense after the rebuttal because I do tend to forget about responses made earlier in the round. Also, if I'm unsure on whether to buy your response developing it further would resolve that issue. So, if you think a defensive response is going to be vital to you winning a round, I would extend it.

If you are going to read an overview tell me before your speech so I can flow it somewhere.

All speeches should be signposted well. If not, I will miss arguments on my flow and it will be your fault.

Summary and Final Focus parallelism is important to me. If you want me to evaluate something as an offensive argument it needs to be in the Summary. Please make it explicitly clear as to why I should be making my decision. I only vote off arguments in the final focus.

Warrants need to be extended in both the summary and the final focus. If at the end of the round I don't understand why an argument you made is true, I will not vote off of it.

Please make these debates funny, throw in a joke or two.

Hemamalini Sitaraman Thomas S. Wootton HS 6 rounds

Jacob Skeehan Northwest Guilford HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 18, 2020 at 4:06 AM EDT

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Experience: Debated in public forum throughout high school.

Style Preferences:

Speed is fine as long as you enunciate. I do not vote on delivery, but strong delivery will help my understanding of your arguments. That being said I am very particular about volume. I understand that debates can get heated sometimes, but I ask that you refrain from any disrespectful behavior (yelling, eye-rolling, condescension, etc).

Judging:

Debate is about the clash of ideas. I try my best to come into a round as a blank slate with no preconceived notions or biases. As long as an argument has a logical claim and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim, until it is refuted with greater logic and evidence.

The only time my personal opinion will be a factor will be in topicality debates --on this point, I find topicality debates very annoying/avoidable, links and burdens should be built into your framework or observations so that time in the round is not wasted elsewhere, if it's absolutely necessary to clarify please be brief.

Cross:

Debate is about the clash of ideas. Crossfires are the best opportunity to display a direct clash between arguments. I do not care who "looks best" at the end of crossfire and I do not flow crossfire for argumentation unless you are clarifying something previously mentioned. --crossfire is not the time to bring up brand new arguments or to read cards-- If you need to refer to a new card that is fine but do not read a paragraph as this just wastes time.

*If you successfully poke holes within your opponent's arguments this must be extended into future speeches to be notably weighed in my decision.

Do:

- Be Clear and consistently signpost

- Provide clear impacts that stem from Claim-Warrant-Impact structures.

- I like unique arguments as long as their relevance to the resolution is made clear with links.

Do Not:

-Say "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" and then never mention it again. If this happens, I will drop the contention that the question was related to.

-Raise your voice to the point of yelling --if you do I will likely stop listening and drop whatever point you are screaming about.

Debate is supposed to be fun. I enjoy civil debates where opponents are respectful to one another. If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round as long as we're not running behind. Good luck!

-Jacob Skeehan

Emma Smith Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 12, 2023 at 10:39 AM EDT

I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I just graduated from Duke University and am finishing up my fourth year coaching PF at Durham Academy.

For Nats 2023, please put me on the email chain- smith.emmat@gmail.com.

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

- Please preflow before the round. Holding up the tournament to take 15 min to preflow in the room is really annoying :(

- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason. At the very least, I'll tank your speaks and write you a kindly worded educational ballot about making rounds unnecessarily hostile.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- HUGE DISCLAIMER: My biggest pet peeve in PF right now is the use of progressive args to make rounds inaccessible to teams who don't know how to handle them. Reading progressive args against a clearly inexperienced team to get a cheap win is an easy way to auto lose my ballot. ALSO I am really not confident in my abilities to evaluate progressive arguments. If you choose to run them, you take on the risk of me making the wrong decision despite doing my best. Proceed with caution!

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

Matthew St. Lawrence Apex Friendship High School 5 rounds

Alexandra Stanley Northwest Guilford HS 6 rounds

Harry Strong The Potomac School 6 rounds

Riya Thomas Cary Academy 5 rounds

Veronica Vazquez NC School Of Science and Math 3 rounds

Kelly Wishon Cary HS 5 rounds

Rama Yasin Hire 6 rounds

Navied Yousef Apex Friendship High School 3 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy

2020 — Durham, NC/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

Judges