Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

BACKGROUND:

Hi! My name is Alyson Brusie and I debated in PF in high school from 2014-2018. I first-spoke throughout my high school career pretty exclusively. I attended Colgate University in Hamilton, NY where I am majored in International Relations and minored in Peace and Conflict Studies and now attend Georgetown Law. After competing in high school, I worked for the Emory National Debate Institute (ENDI) in 2018/19 and NDF in 2019/20 (Boston/Des Moines and Session 2/3 online in 2020).

Feel free to ask me anything before the round starts, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. If you have additional questions that for whatever reason are not asked after the round, feel free to email me at abrusie@colgate.edu.

PARADIGM AS OF 10/5/20:

FOR ONLINE DEBATE: I expect an email chain to be set up at the beginning of the round for evidence exchange (use email above). I expect you to send cut cards promptly when requested to the email chain. Please don't be aggressive in cross, online debate is hard enough to debate and judge. Speaking quickly is not the best over Zoom, keep that in mind.

I am assuming that you are doing things you should be doing (weighing, collapsing, giving me voters in the final focus, etc.) and that you're not doing things you shouldn't do (extend through ink, take too long to find evidence, being overtly offensive, etc.), so I'll just continue with some "quirks" about me as a judge:

1. DO NOT LIE ABOUT OR MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE! This is my biggest pet peeve. I WILL drop you if you do this. It is quite literally cheating and incredibly dishonest. If you typically run shady evidence, you should STRIKE ME. If you paraphrase, DO IT CORRECTLY. If you don't know how to correctly paraphrase, don't do it, end of story. If both teams misconstrue evidence, I will most likely drop the side that has the more egregious offense or the team that has that faulty evidence more integral to their advocacy. I am not shy to call for any evidence that I suspect is suspicious at the end of the round and expect it presented to me in a timely manner when requested. I did this a lot in high school, if you run faulty evidence by me and I pick up on it, expect a drop in speaker points, probably a loss in the round, and me to get quite angry and, if the tournament allows it, an angry/annoyed oral RFD (if you know me, you know that I don't get angry easily/often).

2. Don't be overly aggressive (you'll know it when you see it). Through my debate experience, I have become extremely perceptive and sensitive to sexism, especially in the debate community. Keep that in mind.

3. Don't spread. I can follow some speed, but if you go too fast for me, I will miss a lot. I flow on paper so it will be pretty clear when I'm not flowing something. I will try my best to follow as closely as possible though. This is especially true when it comes to rounds online. If there's a connectivity issue, I will miss more if you speak faster and it will be harder for me to tell you if I am missing anything if you are going too fast etc.

4. There is a very good chance that I will vote on the easiest path to my ballot, so provide very clear argumentation. If something goes untouched by the other side and you extend it through every speech and weigh with it/make it a voting issue, there is a very good chance you will get my ballot. I love a good narrative :))) this includes collapsing on main args, weighing, and fully extending every part of the argument.

On progressive argumentation:

Overview: I didn't have much experience seeing progressive debate in high school, nor have I seen it run very often through judging. My knowledge on the matter is limited because I never had the training to fully understand the inner-workings of progressive argumentation so if you run it, I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it correctly unless you specifically make an argument as to how I should evaluate it. Make it very clear for me :) . That being said, I am adaptable and am open to hearing it if you know what you are doing. Please keep the debate accessible to everyone though, don't run progressive arguments on opponents who are less experienced than you.

Theory: please don't. Only use if and only if there is a very clear and distinct violation that you find it absolutely necessary to derail the round to call your opponents out AND you have past experience running theory. If you think that all judges would buy your theory argument, then go for it I guess? Don't expect I will evaluate it the way you want me to evaluate it.

Kritiks: I am open to it, but please only run a K if you have a direct relationship with the argument.

~~ hi :) my name is Mariah (she/her). please make an email chain if you're spreading or there's any chance that the audio is going to be bad: mariahcady00@gmail.com ~~

I debated policy at UGA and PF at Columbus High School. The following is my PF paradigm – if we're in a policy round, most of this probably won't apply to you. See the lower half of this paradigm for Policy rounds.

Speaks:

1. Warrant your responses and arguments, and it'll ensure I flow everything you say.

2. On spreading: a) Let me know beforehand if you are planning on doing so, and b) make sure your opponents are okay with the speed before round. If your opponents explicitly state they don't want spreading, and you spread regardless, I won't be flowing your speech.

3. I appreciate puns in round. (+0.2 speaker points for protentions :)). If you make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you the lowest possible speaks, notify your coach, and you will probably lose this round.

4. Be assertive, not rude.

Argumentation:

1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH.

2. Frontline!! Please :)

3. Signposting is extremely helpful.

4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you. That being said: every argument at the end of the round should have still have a warrant. If there's no answer being made, my threshold for the warranting is definitively lower, but it's always necessary.

5. Summaries - I prefer line-by-line, but I don't mind voters.

6. No new args in final focus (with the exception of weighing analysis in 1st FF).

7. Crossfire/CX doesn't affect my decision. I definitely will not be flowing it. I'll probably type individual ballot comments during this time.

8. I would not highly recommend reading disclosure/paraphrasing/ any other theory/k in front of me in a PF round, especially if you are purposefully leveraging policy args against teams with less resources to win rounds on the flow. I'll evaluate these args on a case-by-case basis.

First-Speaking Team:

1. All offensive extensions and extensions of defense should be in first summary if the second rebuttal frontlined what they're extending in summary. If the second rebuttal did not frontline, then that categorization only extends to offensive extensions.

Second-Speaking Team:

1. The rebuttal should respond to any offensive overviews/turns/DA's. You do not have to respond to defense until summary, but it's probably strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round (see 1st speaking team above).

2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond.

Evidence:

1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and be available almost immediately within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.

2. Any evidence misrepresentations key to the debate will factor into my decision.

Intervention:

If you don't weigh in the round or provide me with a comparative, here's how I will typically decide the round if left to make my own evaluation of arguments:

1. I will generally default util, but specifics depend on the round.

2. I would rather vote on a stronger link and smaller impact than a weaker link and larger impact.

3. I've decided to begin defaulting aff. That being said, if you successfully argue in round why I should be presuming neg, I'll vote neg. If we've reached this point, :(

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

POLICY –

I have little to no knowledge on this topic area. Make sure you debate in front of me accordingly. Do line-by-line. I will always flow, please don't ask me not to. Please read evidence in round, pref accordingly. I love case debate. Think about and debate the internal links and you'll receive high speaker points. I'm most comfortable with CPs, DAs, & Topicality. I am also comfortable with K debates, as long as you make your K interact with the affirmative.

Anything else:

If you have any questions, please ask or send me an email! :)

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.

jedonowho@gmail.com

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means I have to intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner.

Don't do debater math.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

Don't steal prep or do anything else that makes the round last longer than it needs to be (not pre-flowing beforehand, taking forever to pull up evidence).

Don't go too fast in front of me.

Technical things:

Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary

Second rebuttal needs to frontline.

If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.

No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.

Background: 4 years of NFA-LD for Western Kentucky University (one-person policy). 2 years of PF & 2 years of policy at Oakwood High School. Coached various teams and worked at summer debate camps.

email: madelynn.einhorn413@gmail.com.

Policy Debate Paradigm

General Bias:

1. I don't like RVIs. I can't imagine ever voting on one.

2. I don't like procedural arguments other than T. I will vote on one if it is dropped, but if there's ink on it, it seems unlikely (but, not impossible) for you to win on such an argument. For example, I saw a vagueness argument where a team had carded reasons why a team must defend an actor and agent when passing drone policy. The implication was presumption heavy. I think this argument had much more merit than a generic vagueness back file.

3. I don't like semantics-based T arguments. For example, curtail does not mean remove. I think your T arguments should have implications for your debatability of the topic.

4. I don't love theory in general. I see the strategic value of layering up, but I think it's often domeless. Troll theory and tricks are a non-starter for me.

5. I like disclosure. You should disclose your Aff and Neg on the Wiki. I will probably dock your speaker points unless you have a reason you don't disclose (i.e., a novice who's never heard of the wiki or solely running identity-based arguments that you will share with anyone via email but are uncomfortable with posting to your name online). I will vote on disclosure theory.

6. Speed is usually ONLY a voter in JV and novice. In those divisions, you are trying to get a feel for debate, not moot your opponent's ability to learn. Otherwise, in varsity it's only a voting issue if you have a disability you've shared with your opponent or another legitimate reason.

General Thoughts on Judging:

I have outlined my biases, I typically try to judge on the flow. But, if you make a ridiculous claim, your opponent can likely debunk it even without evidence (i.e., if someone says that Canada is not part of North America).

Flowing/Speed: I do not flow while reading the speech document. I flow through listening to you debate. I might open it during cross-x or prep if I am interested in reading your evidence. While I am comfortable with any speed (especially on card text), clarity on tags and analytics can only help you improve my flow. I will give verbal indications if I cannot understand you.

Evidence: I like good evidence from a quality source. I will not factor evidence into my decision unless I

1. Am told to by the other team.

2. I cannot decide the debate otherwise.

It might not be purposeful, but it will be hard for me, even if in-round evaluation is not made, to evaluate a econ impact defense card from the NYT in 2007 over a 2022 econ impact card from an economics professor conducting quantitative analysis.

Defense Evaluation: I think defense is rarely terminal, but it can be. For example, if you're reading a politics DA about passing a bill that's already been passed, terminal defense is proving the bill passed.

Thoughts on Arguments:

You should mostly do what you like best. I try to evaluate based on the flow.

Aff: engage with the topic.

That does not mean you must endorse the topic, just that you should be topic-relevant. I'm likely implicitly biased against critical affs, particularly those that don't seem to have much of an impact (i.e., I think some obscure phil Aff is less persuasive than an identity-based Aff). I have no ideological opposition to critical Affs, however, I do often internally question their predictability (suggesting, predictability is a persuasive neg argument).

In general, I like big-stick Affs that have quality-evidence.

Neg:

Case Debate: I love it. Do it more. Teams undervalue case debate.

DAs. I love them. I am often skeptical of politics DAs, but I'll evaluate them fairly.

CPs. I love them. I like pics, condo CPs, etc. Delay and Consult are probably cheating, especially delay. In this case, read theory to test the validity of the CPs.

Ks. I like them. But, they should be clearly explained and topic relevant. I mainly read topic Ks, the basics like cap, and Baudrillard (I know, I'm the worst).

T. Great. Test if the Aff is T. I think carded violations are significantly more persuasive than analytic violations. But, I understand if you're hitting an obscure, new Aff, you won't have a carded violation.

Theory. Meh in general. But, if you can implicate it, then I suppose it makes sense. I prefer drop the argument. For example, if you prove a perm is severance, they shouldn't be allowed to go for that perm, they shouldn't just lose the debate.

One condo bad is a non-starter.

However, I do understand that theory is sometimes the best out and can be impacted well to the debatability of the round. For example, if your opponent reads 27 analytical condo CPs, it might be a good idea to read some theory argument (though, you can probably easily defeat 27 unwarranted CPs). I won't even flow horrible, meme theory arguments. You can ask me my opinion on the theory argument before the round if you are unsure (for example, multi-condo bad is something I'll flow; dress code theory is not).

Overall, I'm probably best in this order:

1. Policy stuff.

2. K stuff.

3. Theory.

But, good luck and have fun! Let me know if you have additional questions.

LD Paradigm

Progressive LD:

I evaluate progressive LD the same as policy. However, I will try to be more open to theory because I know that time constraints make LD more difficult. Feel free to ask me questions about this before the round. I still don't like meme theory.

I'm okay with any speed. But, I've noticed LD debaters tend to maintain the same speed on tags, analytics, and card text. Please slow down or get louder on tags and analytics so I can differentiate them. On theory shells please slow down a bit so I can write down each internal-link since I will not backflow.

Traditional LD: 

I guess I just vote on the flow. I prefer line-by-lines to condensed voting issues. It's easier for me to evaluate. I'm more willing to entertain non-traditionally structured arguments (i.e., asserting and implicating someone is not topical vs the standard carded interp, violation, standards, voters).

Traditional vs Progressive Rounds:

I find this difficult to determine a clear stance on. I understand the judges who think progressive LDers should adapt to traditional debaters, but I also think it's weird to tell people not to debate their best. I think progressive debaters should flash documents and slow down significantly on tags and analytics, but go full speed on card text. I think you should be kind and not belligerent when the traditional debater is asking questions. I will boost your speaker points if you adapt a little bit, but I won't dock them if you run progressive arguments. Just be kind, I was a freshman in policy debate and it's tough facing opponents who understand policy debate. You probably don't need to pull out your critical Aff when facing a novice who's only done traditional debate (I think it's fair to though if you're ONLY reading this critical Aff in every round i.e., certain anti-Blackness debaters dedicated to educating the community on structural racism).

PF Paradigm

You should debate this round knowing I have the most experience judging and debating policy. I will evaluate the round on the flow. You can read what you'd like.

A couple thoughts:

1. You should flash documents. I will dock your speaks if you don't. If you decide not to (which I dislike as a norm), you get 30 seconds to find a card before it's prep time.
2. I like disclosure. I understand the wiki is new, but you should inform your opponents before the round what you are reading. I'll boost your speaks if you do this in front of me.
3. I like full cards. I think paraphrasing is a good skill, but full cards are the most true to the source.
4. I think you should have all cards available, formatted correctly, and cited properly. I have no desire to read through your pdf.

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com. Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org. Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

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.

Current Position -- I have been the head debate coach at Lincoln Southwest High School for the past 20 years. In that time I have coached and judged PF, LD and congressional debate.

Background -- I have been coaching speech and debate for the last 28 years. I have been coaching pubic forum since its inception 20 years ago. I was a high school and college competitor in speech and competed in LD in high school.

PF Paradigm --

1. I believe that PF is a communication event with special emphasis on the narrative quality of the arguments. The story is important to me. Blippy argumentation or incessant reading of cards with no analysis or link back to the resolution does not hold much weight in my decision. Do the work in round -- do not make me intervene.

2. Weighing mechanisms should be fully explained -- if you want me to vote using your weighing mechanism, it is your duty to actually tell me why it is a good mechanism for the round and how your side/case/argument does a better job achieving the mechanism.

3. Presentation of arguments should be clear. I am not a fan of unbridled speed in this event. You need to speak clearly with a persuasive tone.

4. Reading cards > paraphrasing cards

5. If you must ask for cards or if you are asked for cards, you need to be prepared to ask for and present these cards in an efficient manner.

6. Don’t be rude.

Email chain/ questions: char.char.jackson21@gmail.com

they/them

As a topshelf thing, I will probably vote for arguments I don't understand

LD Paradigm:

arguments in order that i am comfy with them are

theory>larp>K's>tricks> phil

i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something

I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.

PF Paradigm:

Send docs even in person i expect docs from all of you

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I wont do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Presumption

I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.

I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.

i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.

debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Great Communicator Series: Please refer to just the Main PF Paradigm and the GCS Rules.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit for the Blake School from 2014-2018. I also coached for the Nueva School my first year in college. I'm currently a senior at UC Berkeley studying Political Economy. I haven't been involved in debate for a few years now, so please don't go super fast, but other than that I still remember how the activity works.

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Background: I actively coached from the fall of 2002 through the national tournament of 2017. I coached all events at various points, but had strong LD, PF, Congress, and Individual Events experience through the years. I was on the Board of Directors of the National Speech & Debate Association prior to joining the organization as their Director of Community Engagement. Through that work I oversaw processes related to topic writing, competition rules, publications, and National Tournament operations. I am currently the Principal of Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa.

Debate preferences:

1) Clear signposting

2) Give me clear warrants - even in extensions - with specific impacts.

3) I prefer having a framework to compare impacts to, which makes weighing important.

4) I am not against speed, however, I do not judge a lot. Therefore, I don't have the skill that I used to. Slow down for tags and analytics.

5) Theory/Kritiks - I am not inherently opposed, however, I worry about the assumptions people make about how arguments interact with one another and me having that same knowledge. I also worry about the lack of time to develop such arguments.

I did High School Debate Speaking at Eagan High School in Minnesota. I competed mostly on the national circuit during my time in highschool. I specialize in lay appeal.

TLDR: I am a youtuber who is just trying to have a good time.

Things to Remember…

1. Framework: If you don’t provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.

2. Extensions: No extensions through ink. I don't require 1st summary to extend defense, but link/impact extensions have to be in summary to evaluate them for final focus.

3. Evidence: prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase. 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.

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.

6. Theory: I have a pretty low threshold for theory. I also 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.

7. Critical positions: I pretty strongly agree with the standards for critical positions, and more specifically, identity based argumentation, that have become established in Policy/LD. Meaning, absent personal connection, there better be an EXTREMELY compelling reason for you to be the voice for the position.

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.**

Tech ---X------------------------------------- Truth

To understand my scale of Truth look to the following:

Vaccines -------X--------------------------------------------------------- Climate Change

Lay --------------------------------X- Flow

PF Coaches ----------------------------------------------------X--------- Extemp Coaches

AT -----------------------------------------------------x--- A2

AFF (acronym) --------------------------X----------------------------- aff (truncated word)

Mariah Cady -----------------------------------------------------x--- NCFL's

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

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.

FOR Varsity PF:

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

You should shake your opponents hand but not mine.

Always let the coin hit the ground.

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

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

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

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

Do the correct standing/sitting procedure for crossfire please.

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

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

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

Bad: "Instead of affirming we should do this"

Good: "If you negate this will happen"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR LD/CX:

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

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

I used to have a long paradigm, but nobody read it. Here's the tl;dr:

WEIGH- if nobody makes an attempt to weigh, I'm going to flip a coin

Open to pf-considered wacky args i.e. div war, dedev

Theory/K's are fine, but if you suck at them, I will notice

Spread if you want

I might call for ev

Entertain me! (+0.2 speaks per debater, max once per bullet point)

- Call the AFF case arguments 'protentions' instead of 'contentions'

- Skip GCF

- Do an interpretive dance

- Spin around when you read a turn

- Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!)

Thinking about subtracting speaker points for being late because y'all are ridiculous