I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.

Ok with speed just be clear. Will put down my pen and stop flowing if you are going to fast.

Please be respectful during cross.

Hi! I've been judging debate for 4 years now. I primarily have experience with PF and have judged at tournaments like TOC and SCU, but at the core I AM A LAY JUDGE. However, I still vote tech > truth. At the end of the day, even if you make bad arguments, if your opponents do NOT call you out for it, I'll buy the arg.

BUT, some key things to note (no matter how tech > truth I am, I AM STILL LAY):

1) Do not spread please. I will look at you in confusion if this happens, because I cannot flow that fast.

2) ALL RACIST, !!SEXIST!!, HOMOPHOBIC, and OVERALL AGGRESSIVE rhetoric is not tolerated and will result in an automatic drop.

3) I watch cross, but don't judge on it. You don't have to scream at each other.

4) do not read theory or Ks, because I don't know the formalities of it. however I will evaluate progressive argumentation as long as the framing is clear because its important to have that in the debate space

In conclusion, you're all winners! please have fun! THANK YOU COME AGAIN.

- main ideas written by my daughter (neha seshadri of mira loma gs)

I've been out of the game for some time, but I'm not an idiot.

LD:

Do what you do. I prefer arguments tied to the resolution though I'm not against listening to whatever. I think the 1AR ought to be treated as a 2AC. I give the 1AR leeway on extensions though I do believe you need to make what will be in the 2AR known in the 1AR. You need to bridge competing frameworks in the debate if they exist. On theory, I don't vote on potential abuse, you'd be smart to engage in strategy that proves actual in-round abuse. If you presume I can understand high level philosophy at ridiculous rates of speech, you might be faulty in your presumption. LD is a short debate. I'd prefer to hear fewer well developed arguments than several underdeveloped ones. Have a strategy on the neg beyond vomit on the wall and see what sticks.

PF:

Be nice to each other. You do need to extend arguments to be able to win them. Framework debate without warrants is a waste of your time. Collapse and weigh, but be sure you extend arguments (claim, warrant, impact) in the process. When you aren't speaking during your speech times, or asking questions in cross, you are prepping. If you don't have your evidence readily available for the opposing team to see and vice versa, you are prepping. All offense, strategy, and weighing you want me to consider in the final focus should be in the summary speech. I don't care what you do otherwise. If the first speaking team is aff and the neg simply wants to read offense against the aff in their first speech, have at it if the resolution suggests that's all you need to do. I don't necessarily believe that the 2nd speaking team has to answer all arguments against their case in the rebuttal, but I do think there are good reasons that can be made in the debate for why they should have to and good arguments to be made in the debate why that might be an unfair burden. Engage in those discussions if you feel that's important. Above all else...collapse and weigh. This event isn't about saying as much as possible. The best debaters in my eyes can say as little as possible, say it well, and win.

Evidence Standards - Paraphrasing is, by definition, expressing the same and complete meaning/ideas using different words. What it is not, is representing a whole range of meanings/ideas using less words. You simply cannot capture an entire article or section of an article in a sentence or two. A 4 minute case with 30+ citations is impossible without academic integrity issues. It means that a debater is not fully representing the evidence that it is claiming to. I've witnessed debaters say a sentence about an article and then hand the entire article to the opposing team (or to me when I call for evidence) and suggest "that" is what they read in the debate. I will not consider paraphrased evidence unless I am sure (and my flow is still decent, despite being old) that the entirety of what is being represented in the evidence is what was paraphrased in the round. The beauty of debate is that this type of paraphrasing simply isn't necessary. Just read the evidence. I can't judge a debate about arguments that aren't arguments using a flow. I highly suggest debaters reflect on this practice, and do better. If you are reading this paradigm and recognize that your opponents are engaging in the practices above, I would suggest you make this an issue in the debate. This does not have to happen via theory arguments as in other events. To me, its about evidence comparison. The same as weighing, comparative argumentation helps distinguish why some arguments are more important/better than others. In addition, numbers aren't arguments, they represent empirical claims. You should be able to substantiate those empirical claims.

Steve Clemmons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER POINTS

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

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

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

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

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

CX/Crossfire

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

Evidence in PF

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

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

*Updated for January 2020*

St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21

Email: cara.day@utexas.edu

Or FB message me with questions

I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.

General/TLDR

-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.

-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.

-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact, or you don't get access to the argument.

-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.

-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).

- CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.

- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)

Speaks

I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.

Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.

If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/

If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.

For PF:

General

Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.

Rebuttal

2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).

Summary

My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.

Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. Man ... it better be ...

If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.

Final

I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.

First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.

Ks/Theory/T/CPs/etc.

I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.

Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

For LD:

My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)

Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1

Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1

Ideal FWs: 1

Theory/T: 2

Tricks: 2

K: 3

Non-T Affs: 5

Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.

FW: I'm a philosophy major, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc

Theory/T: I default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.

If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.

Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.

Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.

DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.

Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!

If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.

The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.

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

"People have become educated, but have not yet become human.” - Abdul Sattar Edhi.

TLDR;

Do whatever you want, but do impact calculus.

A Little About Me:

I competed for Dougherty Valley High School between 2015 to 2019 in Public Forum and Extemp. It's been a number of years since I was involved in the debate space and I'm sure PF has changed since I left. I am generally okay with any type of argument, but I have limited experience with K's and Theory. You will benefit if you slow down while presenting these types of arguments.

Specific To Stanford 2024:

I am fine with spreading but I would highly prefer you email speech docs to your judge beforehand.

On The Juicy Stuff.

I am a Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) judge so I will believe anything you tell me, but it needs to be warranted. I try to limit my judge intervention as much as I can, however, I won't be afraid to intervene is if there is no impact calculus in the round. Other than that, I'm fine with any type of argument you throw at me, and you can speak as fast as you want.

I will try to be a visible judge so if I start shaking my head maybe don't go for that argument, but if I am nodding that's probably a good sign. I use my computer to flow. I will yell clear if it is too fast, but my threshold is pretty good, but if you want to full-on spread please flash me the speech doc so I know whats going on.

Tech > Truth.

Time Yourselves.

I evaluate framework and overviews right on top. I love it when I know what impacts are going to be the most important, and which impacts I should prefer. This helps you organize and helps me understand what the narrative of your team is. I love, love, love overviews/underviews and think they make Public Forum Debate interesting.

Please sign post, especially in Summary and Final Focus.

Whatever is in Final Focus must be in Summary, however I am totally ok with you extending defense from rebuttal to final focus if you are the first speaking team. This is because I believe that Public Forum Debate is structurally disadvantaged for the first speaking team. That means first summary obviously needs to have all your offense. I will literally stop flowing if the argument in Final Focus is not in Summary.

I love it so much when teams collapse into two to three issues in Final Focus. I love it when teams blow up impacts in Summary and Final Focus and use the ends of their speeches to do Impact Calculus. This is really important, I NEED good impact calculus to evaluate who I vote for. I need to know why you win on things like Probability, Magnitude, or Time-Frame and I need to know why those are more important than what your opponents are going for. If you don't know what impact calc is do some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_calculus

I award speaks based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. I will not be afraid to vote you down and nuke your speaks.

I will always call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. I am bad at remembering tags, but I definitely call for cards.

PLEASE FOLLOW NSDA/CHSSA (Depending on the tourney) EVIDENCE RULES AND HAVE EVIDENCE ETHICS. I need to hear author last name and date in the speech, otherwise its just rhetoric.

On other arguments. I'm totally ok with things like K's, Theory, whatever else but do know that I personally have minimal experience with K's or theory shells so I will need these types of args to be well warranted and explained.

If you have ANY questions about my paradigm or my decisions please do not be afraid to ask.

If you are funny and not offensive, I'll probably up your speaks.

Good Luck!

Also I think the way that I view debate is very similar to Shreyas Kiran, so check out his paradigm if you are bored.

Email me at TheSaadJamal@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2 years (PF, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, Expository)

I award speaker points based on fluency, cohesiveness, and presentation style.

How I will choose the winner:

-Narrow down your points by the end of the round.

-Support your arguments with evidence, but reasoning is important too.

-My decision will mostly come from what is presented in summary and final focus.

-Signpost, don't go fast, and don't use debate terms.

-I mostly understand the concept of offense and defense, but if you decide not to go for an argument with only defensive responses, please tell me so I know.

-Explain your responses and how they refute your opponent’s arguments.

-Make sure if an argument is in final focus, it was in the summary speech.

-Weigh your impacts over your opponent's.

I try to take a lot of notes but I usually can’t entirely keep up with the pace of the debate. If something is important, make it very clear.

How heavily I weigh different aspects of the debate: (1 is not at all, 10 is heavily)

Clothing/Appearance: 1, Use of Evidence: 8, Real world impacts: 7, Cross Examination: 6, Debate skill over truthful arguments: 6

Debate doesn’t matter. Human rights atrocities happen no matter how I vote. We can only change what happens in a round, not in US foreign/domestic policy.

Coach for La Salle Pasadena. Coaching for 6 years @ local, circuit, TOC/NSDA Nats level.

Speed is fine (because debate doesn’t matter), but if it's not great, I'll let you know and say 'clear'. Don't spread--it's not a way to pick up my ballot (again, debate doesn’t matter). Threshold: 270 words, give or take.

New Summary/Prep rules: Spend 2 minutes on summary, then that third minute on weighing. Final focus--start with that weighing that your 1st speaker ended on, then do the extensions. Summary=collapse. Spend that newly acquired 3d minute of summary providing a comparative impact calc or link weighing or whatever, but explaining how you outweigh. Don't use summary as a 2nd/additional rebuttal, if you can help it. If you want me to consider your arguments in Final Focus, I need to have heard them extended through the Summary. Final focus should be mostly comparative weighing. I will vote for the team that recognizes their own arg in its relevance to their opponents'.

I have a soft spot for Kritiks (because debate is problematic), so you can try it out, but if your Kritik ends up doing more harm than good (taking advantage of a Kritik to pick up a ballot without truly interacting with the literature of the Kritik or understanding each party's participation in oppressive systems, etc. will annoy me), I'll not consider it and possibly intervene against you.

If I don't get something on the flow, it's because you didn't emphasize it enough. I'll weigh what's on my flow, and that's the best I can do.

Re: postrounding--I don't find it educational. In fact, as a woman in debate who has her decisions and presence questioned at nearly every intersection in this activity, I find that getting postrounded by debaters just makes the space hostile and exhausting. So if you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks after the round is over. If you have questions (rather than a desire to regain some power that you lost in dropping the round), come see me outside the round and we can talk.

When in doubt, ask. Or strike me. Either works.

Occupation: Computer Engineer

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: I do not consider myself an experienced judge, but I have judge Public Forum, Parli, and Policy at a few tournaments over the past two years.

Speaker Points: I understand things only when spoken clearly and at an understandable speed. I will award speaker points based on how well I understand what you are saying,

Voters: I will vote off of things that you clearly depict to me that you have won in your last few speeches. Make everything as clear as possible please!

Flowing: I try my best to note down what I can. I cannot promise an organized flow, but I do take notes.

Clothing/Appearance: Just dress appropriately!

Real World Impacts: I will often weigh impacts based on what I think has a bigger magnitude, but please don't run things that are out of proportion as I will view them as having close to no probability of occurring.

Cross Examination: Be respectful! I do not like when people don't let others finish talking or talk over them.

affiliations/info:

previously: 2x qualified to the toc, won some debates, Berkeley '20, assistant head of ms speech and debate for harker.

more importantly, now: UChicago Law '24, am less "in debate" than i previously was.

my email is sarahhroberts@berkeley.edu – please put me on the email chain!

for novices/new debaters:

- do what makes you comfortable! debate is a ridiculous activity and the best part of it is that you get to say and argue whatever you want. if that looks like a lot of case arguments, great! if that is topicality and a disad, also great! i will listen to your arguments and give you feedback regardless of what you do :--)

tdlr: you should not pref me if:

- you intentionally don’t disclose

- your strategies rely heavily on friv theory/tricks

- you are going to be rude and uninterested in the debate

- your strategies rely primarily on personal attacks of other debaters

- you find yourself postrounding judges for egregiously long times after the rfd

- you read nebel t but 1. do not have an explanation of why semantics is the best frame for debate and or 2. do not understand the linguistic basis of semantics/pragmatics. this is the one thing my linguistics degree has given me.... i have an incredibly high baseline for this!

tldr: you should pref me if:

- you do not do the above

- you like high theory

- you like going 6 off w tricky cps + disads

- you like well researched politics scenarios

online debate:

- record your speeches -- if you, me, or an opponent cuts out, you don't get to re-do the speech -- you only get to send the local copy you made.

- please monitor the chat so that if there's a technical error we can adjust as quickly as possible

- if you are debating w your camera off then i will similarly be judging w my camera off.

- see Rodrigo Paramo's paradigm for essentially all my thoughts on online debate

unsortable thoughts:

· IMPORTANT: flex prep means asking questions during prep time - in no world does unused cx time become prep time - what????? you get your 4 (or 5) minutes that's it no more of this nonsense

· larp>>good k debate>>>theory heavy debate>>bad k debate>>tricks and phil

· i flow cx -- that means i’m exhausted of the arg that "cx doesn't check because judges don't flow it", that doesn't mean you don't need to make the arguments you establish in your actual speech.

· i’m not into postrounding. this includes but is not limited to: talking at me for thirty minutes, trying to re-read your 2a/nr at me, sending me excessive emails about why you think my decision is wrong. if you have had me in the back and have postrounded me every time, you should... maybe think about redoing your pref sheet!

· explain what perm do both looks like (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

· if you want/will need me to look at an interp/counterinterp/perm you read, those things must be sent within the speech doc. i will hold you to what is written, or you will risk me just evaluating the words I heard -- that also means no shifty changing in cx!!

· given how clear it is to me that no one can really flow a debate round as it is delivered based on prep time just becoming a spec review, you are fine to toss out a "slow" at your opponents if you can't flow/understand at their top speed. this is better than you asking 1000 clarification questions during your prep time.

specifics:

speaks --

total average, at present, is a 28.53. i have never given a 30. no ceiling on excellence!

things that help speaks: technical competence, numbering, getting the round started on time, good articulation of k lit, bataille, irigaray.

things that hurt speaks: making unstrategic decisions, no explanation of arguments, messy overviews, messy speeches, morally heinous arguments, unclear spreading of theory blocks.

general --

· if the 2nr is split, it will hurt your speaker points

· i will evaluate judge kick arguments

· please slow down on theory

· bracketing is not good, disclosure definitely is. be reasonable here though -- if your opponent literally has never heard of the wiki and you immediately try to crush them on disclosure theory, i will be unhappy :<

· i am not very persuaded by frivolous theory arguments and will hold responses to a lower level of depth than with well developed, pertinent theory args. if you have to ask me if a theory arg is frivolous before the round i think you probably know what the answer is.

· rvis – primarily on topicality – are not persuasive to me

k affs –

things you need to do when you’re reading these sorts of affs

· utilize 1ac ev through the whole debate and contextualize your answers to the theories in your aff

· explain exactly what the aff does/aims to do – are you working towards a paradigmatic shift in how we approach (x) policy or are you criticizing the structure of debate itself? what does voting aff do to resolve those issues?

· understand that teams sometimes just read framework because they don’t know how else to necessarily engage your aff.

· have good background knowledge... i'm so unenthused by people who pull out their ~fire~ baudrillard aff and then make args about creating meaning being good... like what? i will you to a high standard of background knowledge and contextualization/explanation.

i feel more qualified to judge high theory args than i do performances or args centered on individual identity.

fw vs k affs –

my record shows me leaning slightly more neg on framework vs k affs (maybe around 60/40?) presuming you’re not reading fairness impacts (in which case it drops to like 30/70). i think arguments about the specific mobilization/utilization of skills gained uniquely from debate tend to be much more convincing. things i’d like to see in these debates:

· examples of how movements outside of the political sphere have used political knowledge to further their cause

· reasons why knowing about the way legal systems work/interact is good

· a defense of fiat/hypothetical discussions of policies

· contextualized case arguments (which can often answer back for the “they didn’t engage us” claims)

policy affs vs ks –

too many teams pivot to the left when they hear a k in the 1nc. just defend what you did in the 1ac and explain why it’s good. some things that i think are important to do in these debates:

· win framework/win fiat/win why hypothetical discussions of policies are good

· answer the long k overview from the 2nc

· be able to explain/give examples of what the permutation will look like (you definitely get a perm)

· actually debate the k rather than just reading author indicts

· not back down from big stick impacts. you know what ground you get against literally every baudrillard k? heg good.

ks –

you need to have background knowledge of the lit and arguments, i will know if you just pulled a backfile out or haven't engaged with the lit in necessary ways! i only ever went one off in high school so i will expect a high level of articulation from you in regards to explaining your arguments and contextualizing them to the aff specifically. some things i’d like to see in a k debate

· specific quotes being pulled from the 1ac on the 2nc link debate

· technical debating rather than reading a 6 min o/v and saying it answers all the aff arguments

· having a good, in-depth explanation of the theory of your argument/why and how it interacts with the aff in cx when asked about it

· bataille

some authors i have read/continue to read in my free time/am knowledgeable about (bets are off for anyone not listed) ranked from most liked to “ehhhh”:

irigaray (bring her back), bataille, lacan/psychoanalysis, baudrillard, spanos (bring him back), berlant, edelman, deleuze/deleuze and guattari

disads –

i love seeing a well debated disad as much as i love seeing a well debated critique. i think it is really important to have good evidence and good analysis in these debates.

i am less familiar with very specific political processes disads so i may need more explanation of those whether that occurs in a quick 2nc overview or in cx given the opportunity. some things i’d like to see:

· good case engagement along with the disad. this means good impact calc as well as judge instruction

· clear explanation of the political scenario you're reading if it's a politics disad, clear analysis on the link chains if it's not a politics disad

· actual cards after the 1nc

counterplans –

i’ll grant you leniency in how shifty your counterplans can be. i think really specific counterplans are one of the greatest things to see in debate.

· if you cut your cp evidence from 1ac evidence/authors you’ll get a boost in speaks!

· i also think (specific, not generic word) piks/pics are pretty underutilized -- especially against k affs – i’d love to see more of these.

· i don’t think explanation-less "perm do the counterplan" or "perm do the aff" are legit.

theory –

less qualified to judge these debates imo, but will still listen to them. please slow down and don't spread through blocks -- i'll stop flowing if i can't understand it.

i have no tolerance for frivolous theory. if you are reading arguments related to what your opponents wear or what esoteric word needs to be in the 1ac, i will not enjoy the debate and will most likely not vote for you!

topicality –

a good block/2nr contains a well thought out and developed interpretation of what the topic is/view of how the topic should be explained and debated in regards to specific arguments that can/cannot be justified vis a vis the topic wording.

i really like to see good lists in t debates (untopical affs made topical by the aff’s interp, clearly topical affs that are excluded by the neg’s interp, etc).

case debate –

there needs to be more of it in every debate. go for impact turns. i love dedev. recutting aff cards.... amazing. if the negative drops your case or does not spend time on it you can spend less time on it in the 1ar/2ar too!!!!

ethics –

don't clip. if your opponent is suspected of clipping, you should have a recording of it and highlighted words in the doc that are clipped. if an ethics violation is called, i will stop the round after getting evidence of the violation from the team that called it and make my decision based on the tournament invite, the ndca rules, and the round itself.

background:

--->brophy '18 (policy), cal '22, double 2'ed so no aff/neg sympathy, toc qual/coaches poll/tournament wins and all that stuff. i coach LD now so this is customized for that.

general:

---[1] ssrivastava@berkeley.edu - put me on the email chain

---[2] good debating outweighs any of my following argumentative preferences, my leanings are only relevant in borderline decisions where poor debating has left too many arguments unresolved and there's no other way to arbitrate other than defaulting to what i'm more convinced by.

---[3] always tech>truth as long as there are arguments

---[4] an argument has a claim and a warrant, a good one has an impact (some ev doesn't even meet this standard) - calling out 'non-arguments' is a sufficient answer until it becomes an argument (pls do this more? it's strategic and helpful for norm-setting - a lot of ev i'm reading is abysmal)

---[5] don't just tell me to read ev - do the actual debating and use good ev comparison in conjunction with that

---[6] slow down on theory. spreading your blocks ≠ debating. and if your opponent is incoherent spreading theory, don't ask them to say it slowly during cross ex - i only evaluate/flow what i can actually hear so you're only doing yourself a disadvantage

---[7] 'which cards did u skip' / 'can you send with analytics' / etc auto-caps speaks at 28.6 nonnegotiable

by argument:

k affs:

---> neg: k affs are cheating. fairness is an impact, but not always the most strategic one. debate is a game, answering args ≠ racist, the [insert fake word here] disad is probably stupid, TVA + SSD are super compelling to me, etc. I'm increasingly willing to vote on presumption vs affs that do/solve nothing and you will be heavily rewarded with speaks if you go for it. k v k can be fun or painful, just have actual answers to the perm.

---> aff: clever/creative t interps with strong defense, strong answers to SSD/TVA, and coherent offense is the best route in front of me. or, just impact turn everything with your thesis and win on the flow. please have real topic-specific AND lit-specific answers to SSD + TVA - i weigh those much higher than most judges, but am also down to discount them on stupid but poorly answered args like "micropolitics is a pre-requisite". vs the k, go for the perm it probably solves.

kritik:

--->aff vs k: most convincing args = particularity, falsifiability, impact turns, alt solvency attacks, and fw. pet peeve is people just saying 'weigh the case' when other interps have more strategic value. also i'm very down for fw no alts with good reasoning. a lot of k teams (not just psycho) make nonfalsifiable broad-sweeping claims so call that out (please do this more i am so ridiculously persuaded by it).

--->neg going for k: can be the worst debates, can be the best - up to you to decide. i'll have a hard time thinking a generic baudrillard debate is good, but neolib/security i'm very open to. surprisingly literate in a wide range of literature, but i'm not granting you the thesis of an entire book without you explaining it sufficiently (which, in ld, is almost impossible because of time constraints). utilize framework cleverly PLEASE

cp/da: my personal favorite strat. vs soft left affs sufficiency framing makes sense (especially if you bait 'step in the right direction'). smart adv cp's make me happy and will reward you with speaks. think about competition theory more - pdcp is very sloppily debated out. i'm very anti pics that are textually uncompetitive.

t: good for nit picky violations with good impact stories, undecided on reasonability (but more down to vote on it than the avg judge if well explained - esp if the only response is a 2 second 'causes intervention' arg - but tbf it's never well explained)

tricks/phil/friv: hate this but also if you can't answer this nonsense you probably deserve to lose

theory: in theory inf condo good, but i could be persuaded that the structure of LD makes this untrue. no 1ar theory makes a weird amount of sense to me. slow down and actually debate theory pls. pics are fun but theoretically more justifiable with solvency advocates.

decision time:

decision making: i first resolve quick arguments (technical drops or one side being clearly ahead) then I compare how much work I have to do for each side to grant the key argument pathways for their victory and vote for the team that requires the least work. there's almost always some work required - if there's not, then a) you're getting good speaks b) comes down to persuasive argument framing / judge instruction (i.e. which way to err on key args, how losing one key arg might implicate some other arg's probability, etc - basically closing doors).

tech>truth: the implication to this being true is limited by the debating done/argument presented, and everything is a sliding scale. dropping a solvency deficit doesn't mean the aff doesn't solve, it probably just means the aff only solves some percent of its advantages depending on the ev (unless it's articulated to implicate 100% of solvency or the argument lends itself towards a large solvency take out via evidence or warrants).

ev evaluation: good research sets you up to win debates. that being said, a clever 2ac analytic is the same in my mind to a card from a random blog with no author quals. just because you have evidence, does not make it a better argument. good ev + explanation > bad ev + good explanation > good ev + no explanation > bad ev + no explanation. resist debate's recent tendency towards awful evidence, but don't be scared to rely heavily on smart analytics.

misc: default to judge kick and sufficiency framing, long overviews are never helpful. the brightline on 2ar leeway is whether enough of the argument was in the 1ar to reasonably expect the 2nr to have predicted it. if i'm not flowing, you're not making arguments.

speaks: being a clear, loud, and snarky/clever presenter with judge instruction in final speeches is the most important for me. closing doors makes my decision easier (god please do this more i dont think ld'ers know how to close doors) and will be generously rewarded. research quality/innovative strategies would be the next most important. speaks inflation is probably inevitable and hurting certain debaters doesn't solve, so i'll default to the rough average at that tournament to form my scale.

i did PF in high school (2014-18) and coached for ~2 years after.

i have not thought about debate in the past 4 years, i don't have topic knowledge, and am not comfy with technical/theory-ish things in PF. please treat me like a flay judge! i like seeing lots of impact calc, meta/weighing throughout the round along w/ a clean narrative — doing all of these well will mean i give u high speaks (29+). i will lower speaker points for teams that are mean :(

you can wear whatever is comfortable for you in rounds. i don't believe in having to wear a suit for tournaments.

more importantly, i hope you are having a good day :)

sanjim@berkeley.edu

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership