Ultimately if you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will dock speaker points if you are aggressive, disrespectful or downright rude to your opponents. I'm fine with speed as long as you speak clearly. Always signpost! If I'm judging based on the flow you would have a better chance at winning if you are able to articulate and organize your arguments clearly. Lastly, have fun :)

I'm a lay judge, please adapt.

Effective communication matters to me. Slow down. Weigh your arguments. 

Good luck!

============

My personal speaker point scale starts at 28 for an average performance.

30 Almost perfect, amazing.

29.5 Outstanding

29 Very good, some outstanding aspects

28.5 Good, no big problems

28 Average

27.5 Needs significant work

27 Needs lots of work

26.5  Serious problems

Below 26: offensive, inappropriate

Congress, overall - I am here to judge you and you are here to speak. I don't like when time is wasted not debating when that's the whole point of this event existing. Along this line, if previous question was moved and you still have a speech, maybe you should have been better prepared or chosen to speak sooner. I believe it is selfish to make an entire chamber sit through a broken cycle if your speech is not going to actually contribute to debate.

Congress Scorer- Congressional debate should be extemporaneous or have an extemporaneous feel. If I can tell that this is a pre-written speech and not your actual words, this will result in an automatic 5.

Because there is only 3 minutes per speech, the critiques I can provide are generally not the most thorough, however, I do try to provide feedback based on what I notice.

Speaker ranking is determined by conduct in chamber and questions asked. I do not necessarily take into consideration the number of speeches; however, in a competitive round, quality of speaking and speeches will be a distinguishing factor between close competitors. To break this down: You will be ranked higher in my ballot if you:
1) Use questioning time effectively both as a speaker and as a questioner (I don't mind asking question to bolster your side as long as you aren't wasting what little time is given in each block)
2) Effective and correct use of parliamentary procedure
3) Have well-spoken speeches that do not read from a page (or do not feel like they were written from a page).

Speeches scoring is determined based on this rubric on page 14 https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-Congressional-Debate-Guide.pdf. I prefer this rubric to the 2020 guide due to its detail.

It is rare for PO to rank below 5th in the round on my ballot. I understand the difficulty and the difference in the role of PO vs Speakers in the Chamber. That said, if there are many people deserving higher ranks as speakers,

Congress Parliamentarian - I ensure that proper order will be kept in the chamber at all times. I am very familiar with Parliamentary Procedure and will assist the Presiding Officer as needed. For Novice and JV, I will generally hold a more interactive seat with clear and direct instruction, as well as advice. For Varsity, I will take a more observational seat (unless the PO has specifically asked for a more hands-on parliamentarian). My expectations for both are similar (being more lenient with JV/Novice), however, are also understanding of experience in Speech and Debate, as well as the category overall.

What you can anticipate from my feedback: If you are a speaker, honestly, unless I have to say something (for good or bad), don't expect to get feedback from me on your speeches. You have two other judges that are giving you feedback. If you are PO, expect very detailed feedback and suggestions. Don't be intimidated by walls of text and paragraphs (with links), because that feedback is there to share my knowledge and tips that I have had with my experience with ParliPro and POing and imparting that on you.

Scoring, overall, is based on conduct in the chamber. Generally, students will receive a higher rank if they:
1. Use proper parliamentary procedure in every role in chamber (personal privilege, point of inquiry/order, effective uses of motions, etc.)
2. Utilise questioning blocks appropriately and functionally (actually asking questions, and not bringing in more information that should be addressed in a speech and ACTUALLY follow NSDA and MSHSL, when appropriate, guidelines)
3. Ensuring fairness and efficiency from every role in chamber
4. Pet peeve of mine: If you say that you are going to follow NSDA guidelines, actually follow them. There are many things that are done that explicitly go against NSDA (and MSHSL) guidelines that no one corrects. Examples include, but are not limited to: opening the floor for debate (this has never been a thing as long as I have been alive), closing the floor for docket nominations

In competitive rounds, I am looking for competitors who are paying attention, genuinely adding to the debate, and making themselves appropriately known.

While I understand that speeches are an important aspect of debate, when I am Parliamentarian, they are my second focus while ranking. I do not score speeches in this role. Most of my feedback is provided on an as-needed basis, with the exception of PO.

Revised April 11, 2018

Sandy Berkowitz

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN), where I teach communication and coach Public Forum, World Schools, Policy, and Congressional Debate. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

I debated policy in high school and college and began coaching in the early 1980s. In addition to the events listed above, I have coached and judged Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, Oratory, Rhetorical Criticism/Great Speeches, Informative, Discussion, and (and to a lesser extent) Interp events, at variety of schools in IL, NY, NC, MN, MI, ME, and CA.

Public Forum

Fundamentally, I believe that PF provides debaters with opportunities to engage and debate key issues of the day before experienced debate and community judges. It is useful and important to understand and adapt to a judge’s preferences. So, for me:

General issues

--The crux of PF is good solid argumentation delivered well. Solid arguments are those that relate to the resolution, are well organized, well warranted, and supported with quality evidence that is explained.

--Good analytical arguments are useful but not normally sufficient. If you make an argument, you bear the responsibility of supporting, explaining, and weighing the argument.

--I flow. But, clarity is your responsibility and is key to a good debate.

Evidence Ethics

--Evidence is critical to building good arguments and that includes warrants. Use academically rigorous and journalistic sources to support your arguments. Offering a laundry list of 5-10 names with few warrants or methodology is not persuasive.

--Proper citation is essential. That does not mean “University X” says. A university did not do the study or write the article. Someone did. Source name and date is required for oral source citation. Providing qualifications orally can definitely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of your argument. The complete written citation (including source name, date, source, title, access date, url, quals, and page numbers) must be provided when asked in the round.

--Exchange of evidence is mandatory when requested. There is not infinite prep time to find evidence. If it takes you more than a minute to find a card when asked, or all you can provide is a 50 page pdf, then I will disregard it.

--Paraphrasing is not as persuasive as reading cards and using the evidence appropriately to develop and deepen your arguments.

--If you have misconstrued evidence, your entire argument can be disregarded.

--Evaluate your own and your opponents’ evidence as part of your comparative analysis.

Strategic issues

--Extending arguments goes beyond authors and tag lines. Extend and develop the arguments.

--Narrative is key. Debate is inherently persuasive. Connect the arguments and tell a story.

--It is in the best interest of the second speaking team for the rebuttalist to rebuild their case. If the 2nd speaking team does not do that, they likely yield the strategic advantage to the 1st speaking team.

--Avoid Grand becoming yelling match, which is not useful to anyone.

--Clash is critical. It is vital to weigh your arguments, which is best to begin before the final focus. Write the ballot in the final focus.

Delivery and Decorum

--PF, and all debate, is inherently a communication activity. Speed is fine, but clarity is absolutely necessary. If you unclear or blippy, you do so at your own peril.

--Be smart. Be assertive. Be engaging. But, do not be a bully.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Finally, have fun and enjoy the opportunity for engagement on important questions of the day.

World Schools

Worlds is an exciting debate format that is different from other US debate and speech formats. It is important for you to understand and adapt to the different assumptions and styles of Worlds. Content (the interpretation of the motion [definitions, model, stance], arguments, analysis, and examples), Style (verbal and nonverbal presentation elements), and Strategy (organization, decision making, engagement, and time allocation) all factor in to the decision and should be seen as critical and interrelated areas. Some things to consider:

--As Aristotle noted, we are influenced by both logos and pathos appeals, which you should develop through both examples and analysis. Thus, narratives are critical. Not just a story to “put a face on the motion,” but an overall narrative for your side of the debate.

--Motions are, in most cases, internationally, globally focused and your examples and analysis should reflect that.

--Have multiple, varied, and international examples that are used not only in the first speeches, but are also developed further and added in the second and third speeches to be more persuasive.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--POIs can be statements or questions and are a key element of engagement during the debate. Questioners should be strategic in what to pose and when. Speakers should purposefully choose to take POIs and smartly respond to them. Typically, speakers will take 1-2 questions per constructive speech, but that is the speaker’s strategic choice.

--Importantly, carry things down the bench. Answer the arguments of the other side. Rebuild and develop your arguments. Engage in comparative analysis.

--Third speeches should focus the debate around clash points or key questions or key issues. Narrow the debate and offer comparative analysis.

--Reply speeches should not include new arguments. But, the speech should build on the third speech (especially in the opp block), identify key voting issues, and explain why your side has won the debate.

Be smart. Be articulate. Be persuasive. Take the opportunity to get to know other teams and debaters.

Policy and LD

I judge mostly PF and World Schools. But, I have continued to judge a smattering of Policy and LD rounds over the last few years. Now that you may be concerned, let me be specific.

Overall, I believe that rounds should be judged based upon the arguments presented.

--Clarity is paramount. Obviously, my pen time is slower than it was, but I do flow well. Roadmaps are good. Sign posting and differentiating arguments is necessary. Watch me. Listen. You will be able to tell if you are going too fast or are unclear. Reasonably clear speed is ok, but clarity is key. For most of my career, I was a college professor of communication; now I teach communication in high school. I strongly believe that debaters should be able to communicate well.

--Do what you do best: policy based or critical affs are fine. But, remember, I do not hear a lot of policy or LD rounds, so explain and be clear. Having said that, my area of research as a comm professor was primarily from a feminist critical rhetorical perspective. In any case, you bear the responsibility to explain and weigh arguments, assumptions, methodology, etc. without a lot of unexplained theory/jargon.

--Please do not get mired in debate theory. Topicality, for example, was around when I debated. But, for other, new or unique theory arguments, do not assume that I have current knowledge of the assumptions or standards of the theory positions. It is your responsibility to explain, apply, and weigh in theory debates. On Framework, please engage the substance of the aff. I strongly prefer you engage the methodology and arguments of the aff, rather than default to framework arguments to avoid that discussion.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--Last, and importantly, weigh your arguments. It is your job to put the round together for me. Tell a good story, which means incorporating the evidence and arguments into a narrative. And, weigh the issues. If you do not, at least one team will be unhappy with the results if I must intervene.

Finally, I believe that Policy and LD debate is significantly about critical thinking and engagement. Better debaters are those who engage arguments, partners, opponents, and judges critically and civilly. Be polite, smart, and even assertive, but don’t be impolite or a bully. And, have fun since debate should be fun.

Paradigm given in round, it seems to change every year. Sorry :D

I am currently in my fourth year of PF debate at Eagan High School. I will be flowing so please do your best to be clear and to signpost!

Extensions: Everything you say in final focus should have been in summary. I will not flow anything that is new - even if it came up in grand cross. Also, if you only tell me to "flow through the Smith card" I won't carry it through. I need at least a brief description of the card and how it fits into the round. Finally, you MUST respond to all defense that has been put on an argument before you can flow it through. Any defense that goes unresponded to will take out offense no matter the strength of the defense.

Speaking: Please don't spread. Speed is okay so long as you are still clear. Remember this isn't policy.

Argumentation: I will weigh anything. As long as you have a warrant and it makes sense, I don't care about how realistic an argument is.

A couple pet peeves of mine: First, don't look at your opponent during crossfire. I am the one you are trying to convince. Also, please don't walk into the room and ask what my paradigm is / what preferences I have. Tabroom exists for a reason.

I once debated as second speaker. Now I'm a senior in college. If I'm judging something other than PF, then something has gone seriously wrong.

General

1) I'll flow. Given that, PLEASE signpost.

2) Please extend warrants (reasons for why your impacts occur). No extended warrant means I have no idea on how to evaluate your impact because I don't know why your impact occurs, and then you feel sad because I didn't vote off the 284,193,829 lives that you supposedly save. I don't want you to feel sad, so please extend the reasoning.

3) Please collapse in summary or maybe even in 2nd rebuttal. It makes your life easier, and also my life easier so I don't need to evaluate like four different things on the flow and you don't need to cover four things and then weigh in a two-minute final focus. Oh, in regards to weighing -- please do that. I'll need that. If nobody weighs, it's up to me to figure it out.

Note on weighing: Using "weighing" words like "knowledgeability," "clarity of impact," etc doesn't cut it. I have no idea what that means. You also need to explain your weighing.

Furthermore, if you want me to evaluate a voter in final focus, it must also be in summary.

4) Speed: Slow down if you think a card or a piece of analysis is gonna be important (starting from the card author and date). Furthermore, if I or your opponents tell you to slow down, please do so. Since we're online, please go a little slower than usual -- I'll be lenient with time.

5) Prefer that you don't try to run theory or Ks -- I have little experience with them. If you do try, I'll listen, but you're gonna have a steep hill to climb to get me to understand and vote off it.

6) I can understand jargon, but don't overuse it.

7) I don't listen to cross -- I think it's a time for the debaters to clear up things for their understanding. However, cross is still binding. Thus, if something important comes up, please say so in speech. Also, just because I’m not listening doesn’t mean you should be rude to each other.

8) Paraphrasing and Evidence: I don't mind paraphrasing. However, if I do find that you're misparaphrasing a piece of evidence, I'll strike that from the flow. If it's egregious, I'll drop you. Also, having cut cards isn't a necessity -- a PDF or live link works -- as long as you can find the specific paragraph or two that explains what you said in the round within a reasonable amount of time.

9) 2nd speaking rebuttal: Please please frontline your own case. If you don't, you're going to have a steep uphill battle to win case as I'll give lots of credence to the defense the first speaking team puts in your case.

10) I don't necessarily flow author names or source names, so when referring back to a piece of evidence, do a quick paraphrase of what the evidence said.

Other info

1. I will call for cards/pieces of evidence if

A. The other team requests that I call for it

B. I have a gut feeling that what you're saying isn't what the card says (a.k.a your evidence is too good to be true, or if I've heard it before).

2. Don't be rude to your opponent.

3. Have fun!

If anything is unclear, please ask me before round or email me at rchang24@seas.upenn.edu.

Hi debaters, I know this is a new experience trying to debate online, so I will be as understanding as possible. Here is a couple tips to be successful in a round with me as your judge: 1. You must debate the resolution. I will not listen to kritiks or theory. 2. Fast speed can be very difficult to understand especially in this online format, so instead I would prefer a couple of well-elaborated responses that are clearly explained. 3. Truth > Tech. Although being technical is good stylistically, I still prefer truthful arguments that make me care. Lastly, don't forget to have fun.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com .Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

Pretty standard stuff, I am in PF so I'm used to speed in round and can flow just fine. The only thing is if you want to go fast, annunciate everything. This is where most people drop speaks.

Aggression is fine, but keep it polite.

In cross fires please go question - answer. Don't use cross ex to bring in other evidence unless the opponent asks you to do so.

Finally, please use voters. If impacts come down to lives versus money, explain to me why each is more important to vote on.

Have fun! Good luck!

I am a previous PF debater so the structure and language is all familiar to me. If you are going to speak fast, you must enunciate so I can keep up with you, but otherwise it's not a problem!

1. The most important thing in a round is being respectful, please make the debate enjoyable for everyone!

2. I don't flow cross, but I am listening. I want to hear impactful questions but I also need you to carry that in your speeches.

3. Good weighing is something I really look for. If you tell me why I should vote for you instead of your opponent with a decent line of reasoning, there's a very good chance that I will listen to you. Especially in PF, use summary for this. In LD, all rebuttals should have weighing analysis.

4. Always have clear sources and links for all of your evidence. It will reflect poorly on you if your opponent calls for a card and you can't pull it up. I will also call for cards if I didn't fully understand the point, so be ready for it.

7. I love a clean flow so signposting is very important and that's generally what I consider most when giving out speaker points.

8. If your framework is important to your case, don't just tell me what it is, tell me why I should prefer it compared to your opponent's. Especially in LD, frame the debate well and I will follow your lead. It should also connect seamlessly with the remainder of your case.

9. Comparative analysis is important when clash occurs. Don't continue to extend evidence without telling me why it should remain on my flow.

Feel free to ask me questions before or after debating! I truly enjoy judging so I hope we can all have a good round :)

Having an enjoyable speaking style is very important but that means nothing if what you're saying doesn't translate to the flow.

Here are things you should do in round

1) Signpost. Please. I'll write everything you say down but don't make it difficult for me to find your evidence later in the round.

2) Use full citations. This one isn't huge but could maybe help you win a point with me. If your person is very qualified to talk about the topic make sure I know that. A last name and a year doesn't give you any advantages. Take the half second to mention who they are.

3) Aggressive styles are fine but don't make it personal. You can be aggressive but only topically. Stay away from personal attacks.

4) Speed isn't key. I can only write so fast. Speaking faster than that just means I'll miss some of what you're saying. Make sure that you have a balance between speed and clarity.

5) Don't let your opponent dodge a question. I want to see confidence in crossfires. If you ask a question and you feel that your opponent tried to avoid it, don't let them get another question. Pressure them until they give you a real answer. I won't punish you for not sharing crossfire time. It's their fault for not answering.

6) I cut evidence after rebuttal. After that I don't think there's enough time to bring up new cards. Have as many cards as you like in your constructive and rebuttal but after that just focus on the ones already in the round.

7) Don't take it too seriously. You're here to win, but losing doesn't mean your life is going to end. Take a deep breath and realize you are free to debate for the rest of your life. No matter how the round turns out you should read the ballot because it'll make you better in the future.

Good luck!

If you have any post-round questions:

andreahagape@gmail.com

What to expect from me:

I debated for 4 years on the Eagan High School debate team. I will be flowing the round, so I will be a bit more of a tech judge. Regardless of how I personally feel about the strength of an argument, I will still evaluate it based on how well it's run within the context of the round. I am okay with speed, as long as it doesn't interfere with the clarity of your speaking. I will vote for whoever has the most offense left standing at the end of the round. I will disclose at the end of the round.

How to win my vote (Road to the Ballot):

1. Weighing

In summary I expect clear weighing mechanisms, and when I say weighing mechanisms I mean you actually have to give a comparative analysis between your impacts and the impacts of your opponents. You can't just say "we outweigh on severity", you need to say "we outweigh on severity because we impact to death by war and our opponents impact to a few million dollars lost". If you give me weighing mechanisms like these I will evaluate your impacts first and then it simply becomes an issue of extending your links into those impacts.

2. Extensions

I will not extend your arguments for you. In order to get me to buy your argument at the end of the round, the entirety of your argument should be extended from Sum all the way to FF. This consists of your claim, warrant, and impact. You need both warrant and impact extensions for me to guarantee an evaluation of your argument. If you are missing any of these, the only way that I will still buy your argument is if your opponents never call you out on forgetting to extend.

Additional note: If you didn't talk about it in Sum but bring it up again in FF, I will not consider your argument. Sum is your most important speech in the round where you go over everything that you feel is relevant, so if it isn't mentioned there it shouldn't be mentioned at all later.

3. Frontlining

1st Speaking Team: I don't expect you to preempt your opponents responses to your case in Rebuttal, so Frontlining should take place in Summary.

2nd Speaking Team: I expect Frontlining in your Rebuttal, and if I don't get it in Rebuttal I won't flow it in Sum. You already know what your opponents have to say against your case by Rebuttal so take the time to defend yourself. Doing that in 2nd Sum is extremely unfair to your opponents because they can only begin to respond during FF and that shouldn't be what FF is for.

Both Teams: I won't accept last minute Frontlining that happens in FF.

4. New Evidence/Arguments

Summary: I am okay with new evidence in Sum as long as it is in support of a preexisting argument. No new arguments in Sum because Sum should be a condensing of the round. The only exception to this is if you are the 1st speaking team and are frontlining in Sum.

Final Focus: No new evidence or arguments should be made in FF. If you do this I will not regard the argument regardless of whether or not your opponent calls you out for it.

5. Signposting

Make sure to signpost and tell me where you are on the flow so it'll be easier for me to follow along. The easier it is for me to understand you, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

6. Etiquette

I don't appreciate overly aggressive speakers. You can condescend your opponents and interrupt them all you want, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger. I also don't appreciate it when people dance around questions in Cross. Your inability to answer questions about your arguments will only reflect poorly on you. Just answer the question and move on.

7. Summary

Summary is not a 2nd rebuttal. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL!!!!!!!! If you start your summary on your opponents case, my brain will start shutting down. Summary is supposed to be about why you have won the round, and proving your opponents wrong isn't the same as proving yourself right. Start your summary on what you are winning on, extend your case properly, and take the time to do weighing. Extending your partners responses from rebuttal is secondary to that (Note: This doesn't mean that you shouldn't also do this).

-----

Speaker Point Breakdown

I will be giving everyone a 28 with 3 exceptions:

1. You are so well spoken that you get a 30

2. You display that you aren't just a bad debater, but a bad person. In that case you will be getting a 25.

3. Idk I'm bored if you tell me something cool I'll give you and extra .5 speakers points because why not.

Credit to Simon Koch for the meme so they can't get mad at me for stealing :)

Speak at a conversational pace. Especially in online rounds.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Arguments in the Final Focus should be in summary. 2nd rebuttal should (at the bare minimum) respond to turns on their case.

The logic of your arguments should be able to stand up on their own. That is, you shouldn't need to rely entirely on a specific piece of evidence to win an argument. Evidence provides good context, warranting, and impacting, but the logic should be relatively intuitive.

Truth>tech. Good rounds are ones that would make sense to the average person, not just a high school debater.

Hi! I was a public forum debater from Eagan, MN and debated PF for four years.

TLDR; To win my ballot win on the warrants, narrative, and flow. To get good speaker points, be respectful. *Please* don’t run any theory in round, this is public forum.

Here are my preferences in round:

1. Be nice. I absolutely hate when debaters are super aggressive, it's unnecessary in my opinion.

2. Reference your flow! This is extremely important, in every speech after constructive. In your speech, make sure you tell me exactly which contention, argument, or card you are referencing. Remember, my flow will contain only what you tell me.

3. I am okay with a little speed, but make sure that it isn’t as fast as a policy round.

4. Don’t paraphrase evidence. Always cite each piece of evidence you read (author, qualifications, and date), and make sure you have access to the full article. If evidence isn’t provided when asked, I will not weigh it.

5. I weigh evidence over logic, but you can use logic to de-link evidence.

6. You should extend terminal defense in the first summary, and should collapse to voters in both summaries. These voters should be repeated in final focus. Create a narrative and extend it. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you.

7. WEIGH. “Prefer this because…”. Make sure to respond to clash. Debates without clash aren’t fun for anybody, especially the judge.

8. If you're racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way... your speaking points? They'll reflect your low behavior.

9. Feel free to ask me questions before round!

Speaker point breakdown:

30-29 - pretty good

28-27 - could be better but good

26 - there's some improvement to be had

I am a former Edina PF Debater with 5 years of experience, and 2 years on the Nat Circuit. I qualled to Silver TOC junior year, and Gold TOC senior year (didn't go tho. Big senioritis moment). That's a bad brag but I just want you to know I know how debate works.

TLDR: I'm tech over truth and I vote off what's in Final Focus. Extend warrants and weigh, don't be a dick or I'll tank your speaks. https://vm.tiktok.com/76gd1C/

I want y'all to have a good time! Debate can be very fun if you let it, so anything you need to be more comfortable in the round, do it! Speak from your desk, a podium, the ceiling, whatever you want.

That being said I have a very low tolerance for being rude, abusive, etc. in round. I've been a girl in debate with mostly girl partners for five years and have had male debaters spend all of cross just yelling at me, try to explain my own case to me, and spend three minutes just telling me I'm confused. If you are mean to your opponents I will tank your speaks SO fast. If you're being sexist, racist, etc. I'll drop you.

How I vote:

1. I'll start my RFD with whatever impact I'm told is the most important, and then move on to the other impacts. If you want your stuff to be the most important weigh early and consistently!

2. Please collapse. Please.

3. When you're extending cards re-state what the warrant is, not just author names. You need to extend links to win any offense so this should be in both speeches in the back half. That being said you should extend cards! Just make it "extend (Author) who explains that..." not "extend (Author), move on"

4. Second rebuttal should address turns on their case, unless your opponent made just a crazy amount of turns. Any turn not responded to is considered dropped. You can still read some defense on it in summary, but I'll be much more lenient toward your opponents.

5. First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but it should be in final focus. You should also answer defense on whatever you're extending (duh) and if you do talk about key defense on your opponent's case it'll really boost your narrative (though again you don't have to, and it won't affect how I vote).

6. Second summary should extend defense.

7. If you don't extend an impact, I won't vote on it. However, I'm ALL about the warrant debate. If you just spend 5-10 seconds on your impact I'm cool with that, just as long as there is an impact.

8. Tell me if you want me to call for a card. I'll also call for things I think are sus but that's the best way to make sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. Evidence ethics are important.

9. If you cite cards as "and that's on (Author name)" in the second half of the round I'll boost your speaks.

Please ask me any questions you have! I'm also happy to talk to you about the decision after round, provided I don't have anywhere to be. If you can't find me just send me an email! Good luck!

chloenmaynor@gmail.com

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

Hello! I did PF for four years on the local Minnesota and national circuit. I'm not a coach, so I am not familiar with topic-specific terminology.

My email is mckin513@umn.edu. Feel free to reach out if there's anything I can do to make the round better for you or if you have questions. Also, please add me to your email chains :)

tldr: I am a traditional flow judge. I highly value accessibility and expect all debaters to make sure their opponents are not excluded from the debate.

General

- Philosophy: Debate is an art. Judge adaptation is a skill, but judges should also allow students room for self-expression and adapt to differing styles. All styles of debate are equally valid.

- Be nice and respectful! Please refrain from laughing at your opponents, yelling in cross, and slamming tables. You and your opponents are people first and debaters second.

- If your case contains triggering material: read a content warning and have an alternate case ready. Failure to do so will cap your speaks at 27. I realize this is harsh, but accessibility and safety are essential. If I feel you are making the round unsafe for your opponents, I will end the round and award your opponents the win.

- Please don't be offensive. If you do, I will vote you down, give you low speaks, and contact your coach.

- Warrants are everything! Please don't forget to explain the why of your arguments (especially in the second half of the round!!)

Speed

- I'm really not a fan of spreading because I find it exclusionary. I won't outright vote you down if you spread but I will be sympathetic if your opponents can't get to everything.

- With that being said, I do not have a problem with speed. I actually prefer faster-paced debates so as long as you don't have to send a speech doc, we're good.

- If your opponents are going too fast, loudly say "clear." If your opponents say clear, slow down!

Evidence Ethics

- I'm also not a fan of paraphrasing. I won't drop you because of it, but again, I'll be more sympathetic to your opponents if they can't address every card you read.

- I rarely call for evidence so its on you to check your opponent's ethics.

- If your evidence is called and you're paraphrasing, you need to present a cut card and the paraphrased snippet you read.

- If I find out you're misrepresenting evidence I'll more than likely vote you down on that alone.

Lincoln-Douglas

- Please make sure to signpost!

- Extend the warrants (cause/why the impact happens) along with your impacts

- Numbering your responses will boost your speaks

- Weigh! Specifically, you should explain why the framework means we have to prefer your case and why we shouldn't prefer your opponent's

Progressive Debate

- I am generally of the opinion that progressive arguments are good for debate when they make sense and serve a purpose. I'll give an example. If you're running a K to increase awareness about LGBTQ+ issues, great! If you're running a counterplan to confuse your opponents, not so great. Basically, care about the issues you're debating and don't exclude people.

- I don't know the specific terms/language associated with progressive debate.

- If your opponents are running progressive arguments and you're not familiar with progressive debate, don't worry! Just try to respond to it the same way you would any other argument: use your logic and don't worry about using the right terms. I'll be sympathetic if you're in this position.

- If your opponents are abusive in round and you don't know how to respond with a shell/other form of progressive argumentation, please still call the abuse out however you like (just no easter eggs). I'll still vote on it!

I debated public forum for four years at Lakeville South High School in Minnesota, on the local and national circuit. I'm currently a freshman at St. Catherine University studying political science and international relations.

I have a pretty tabula rasa approach to judging. I’ll believe most anything you tell me as long as it’s not offensive and you have the proper link chain.

For the sake that my paradigm is kinda long you should prioritize anything that’s bolded if in a time crunch.

Here are a few do’s and don'ts that I believe are imperative to a good debate round:

DO:

• Weigh. Whether it’s on magnitude, timeframe, or probability. I’ll even consider clarity of link a weighing mechanism if nothing else is presented to me.

• Sign Post. I like knowing where you are and you’ll like me more if I know where you are. If you want me to flow your argument on the right spot I need to know where it goes. If I don’t know, I’ll make a solid guess, but there’s a possibility I may guess wrong. Which would be sad.

• Call for Evidence. If the evidence sounds sketchy it probably is so call for it. If it becomes a voting point in the round tell me to call for it. If you don’t tell me to call for it, I won’t.

• Time Yourself and Others. Odds are I will be timing you but sometimes I forget to start the timer. I will cut you off if you go more than 10 seconds over time. If you notice your opponent is over and I haven’t stopped them, hold up your timer and I’ll cut them off.

• Road Map. Tell me where you’re starting so I can be prepared to flow everything you say. Also, if you’re doing some funky order like, “their C2, our C1, their C1” make sure you let know so I can be emotionaly prepared for that

• Frontline in Second Rebuttal. I don’t care that much about mitigatory defense being frontlined. That isn’t going to be the deciding factor of the round (if it is, I’m gonna be big sad). I will consider any turns and terminal defense not frontlined in second rebuttal dropped.

• Trigger Warning. If you are running an argument that could possibly trigger anyone in the room, you NEED to read a trigger warning. If someone says they are uncomfortable with the argument you plan to read, it is your responsibility to read an alternative argument. If you do not, I will drop you.

• Extend. Anything you want in Final Focus has to, HAS TO be in summary. I will not vote on something blindly extended from rebuttal to final focus. Same goes for weighing. I will not evaluate new weighing in final focus.

• Warrants. I like warrants. In my personal opinion a warrant is more important than an impact. Don’t get me wrong impacts are still really important but I need to see warrants if you want anything you say to matter in the round.

• Be Timely with Evidence Exchange. It shouldn’t take more than 30 seconds to find a piece of evidence. If it takes any longer than that the credibility of the evidence goes down hill. If it takes a minute or more you have two options: 1) I cross the evidence off the flow 2) you can take prep to find it

• Collapse. By the end of the round I only want there to be a few arguments on the flow. If everything in the round is extended through summary and final focus there isn't enough time to properly implicate the arguments which makes my job a lot harder because it means I probably have to decide what I believe to be the most important thing in the round. If this happens, no one is happy.

DON’T:

• Be Rude. Debate is an educational activity and everyone deserves to participate and feel safe. If your behavior is isolating someone from participating or preventing someone from feeling safe in the round you’re speaker points will take a solid hit. If it’s bad enough, I won’t have a problem dropping you.

• Excessively Long Road Maps. A road map should be able to be given in one breathe. If you have to breathe during your road map, it is not a road map.

• Read New Arguments in Summary. You should not be reading new stuff in summary. Summary is supposed to condense the round not make it broader.

• Paraphrase. I have this in the don’t section because oftentimes teams will abuse paraphrasing. If you paraphrase evidence it’s okay, as long as you have the evidence on hand and the paraphrasing is accurate.

Other Fun Stuff

• I'm a firm believe in all prep should be flex prep. If you don't understand your opponents argument, you can't really respond to it which defeats the purpose of debate. Just say, "We'll be taking flex prep for this" and ask your question. It's better this way.

• I can handle speed as long as you’re clear. I will say clear if you are not

• If you can not understand your opponents you can also say clear

• I don’t mind a little sass as long as it’s not taken too far

• I’ll pay attention in cross but if you want it to be a voting issue it needs to be in a speech

• If there is anything you need to make the round more accessible say so before the round or email me at abigailnachreiner@gmail.com in advance

If want a speaker point boost, here's how...

.5 speaks to anyone who makes a quality reference to Criminal Minds or Harry Potter

.5 speaks if as the pro team you refer to your contentions as protensions, and as the con team referring to your opponents protensions as such.

If you have any questions, comments, concerns feel free to email me in advance: abigailnachreiner@gmail.com

I am a senior at the University of St. Thomas. I have participated in 2 years of public forum debate, during my high school career. This is my second year of judging public forum debate.

When it comes to debating, I strongly value speaking. I really appreciate debaters who speak calmly and collectively, rather than at a rapid pace. Likewise, I encourage signposting as much as possible in speeches.

I tend to give the win to the team who makes it easiest for me to flow.

i debated PF for 4 years at eagan high school and graduated in 2020. I've been coaching for PF since then for wayzata high school.

***add me to the email chain! (email chain > doc) feel free to ask me questions before the round or to shoot me an email: shailja.p22@gmail.com

general:

- offtime road map: My biggest pet peeve is when you give me an offtime road map and then don't follow it. keep it short and really I just need to know where you are starting unless you are doing something weird.

- speed: i consider myself a flow judge. tech>truth. a case doc doesn't replace your speech. i can flow pretty fast but don't spread. naturally, the slower you go the more i comprehend. so do with that as you will.

- ks, theory, etc... : I a) i don't have enough experience with these kinds of arguments and thus don't feel comfortable evaluating them and b) think they create a barrier in the debate space.

- framework: this is pretty obvious - if a team gives me a framework I will vote off of that (as long as it makes sense) - if you have a FW and the other team doesn't that doesn't mean you win.

plz do not aggressively post-round me :) ask me questions but don't yell at me - i'm not going to switch my decision

how to win my vote:

- weighing: say the words " we outweigh because..." it makes it easier for me.

- signposting: just do it.

- voters: have them and write the ballot for me.

- evidence: evidence ethics have gotten so bad in debate these days. don't take forever to find evidence (speaks will go down). make sure you have cut cards. do not paraphrase.

- extensions: don't just extend through "ink". don't just say "flow Smith over". explain to me what smith says and why it matters in the context of the round. make sure if you say something final focus it is/actually was in summary and vice-versa. if you are the second speaking team you must respond to offense from 1st rebuttal. defense is not sticky. this is given, but if you want me to vote for it at the end of the round have it in every speech.

- overall, please have fun while still being nice and respectful. no one likes to watch an aggressive debate round.

I am a relatively inexperienced judge. I won't be able to get arguments down if you spread, so don't speak too fast.

I value clean extensions and cross-examinations when I make my decision.

Impacts and weighing are probably the biggest factors that affect my final decision.

Tech>Truth

I am a 90s graduate of the Grand Rapids Speech and Debate program and a veteran camper at Concordia. I spent nearly a decade under the tutelage of the Notorious Lee Alto coaching and judging for the Grand Rapids Program. After pausing for many years to focus solely on being a mom, I was welcomed back into the community. I am honored to have been a regular judge for Duluth Denfeld for the past few years. I have spent the past few years judging both Congressional and Public Forum Debate.

I am open to listen to any well-developed argument. There's honestly a little bit of each paradigm in my judging persona, although I tend to lean towards policy maker. I weigh advantages, disadvantages, voting issues. Preference on teams doing the weighing for me in their summaries. Any well-developed argument is fair game from topicality to validity of evidence. I don't prefer the absurd game player theories, but I'll listen to anything! I'll vote on analytical arguments if that's what made the most sense in the round.

Weigh the round.

Give me the voters.

Take the control out of my hands.

Give me well developed arguments and analysis.

I'm a debater at Edina High School. I did PF for 3 years, and now I'm a Congress debater.

PF:

FLOW-ish JUDGE: I'll judge off the flow as my first and foremost criterion, but treat me like a lay judge. Take time to explain arguments thoroughly, extend links, warrants, and impacts; not just the card names.

HAVE FUN: Brownie points if you throw in some jokes/humor. To help you, here are some examples:

- Judge, put on your seat belt...we're going in for the turn.

- Make sure to put on your parachute... we're looking at some drops.

- Their argument is like an Ox...two points, and a whole lotta bull in between.

- Their argument is like Swiss Cheese...it has content, but a bunch of holes.

Extensions: extend important cards, but don't blindly extend cards without explanations. Card names are important, but I care more about good warranting and explanations. If both teams agree on a particular link/impact and both are going for that argument, you don't have to extend it. But please still weigh.

Evidence: If you misconstrue evidence, depending on the situation, I will either a) give you terrible speaks or b) drop you and give you terrible speaks. Generally, if a team indicts it well or I find it to be misconstrued, I will drop it off the flow. If you're paraphrasing, you need to have the card available for me or the other team to call for.

Framework: Unless you tell me otherwise, I will default to the generic util.

Weighing: I cannot stress enough that weighing is important. Please write the ballot for me, explain to me why did you win the round. I do not want to do the debating for you while I'm trying to make my decision. In close rounds, good weighing pushes my decision over the edge. That being said, focus on winning your case first, because otherwise the weighing doesn't matter.

Evidence Comparison: If there are 2 cards in the round that directly contradict with each other, explain why I should prefer your evidence via postdate, warrants, credentials, etc.

Summary and FF Cohesion: The final 2 speeches in the round for each side should mirror each other. Your speeches should go for the same arguments, rhetoric, with the summary collapsing on the argument and the final focus furthering your position. Make sure your voting issues are in both summary and final focus, or else voting for you is going to be very hard.

Speaker Points:

1) I am not afraid to give you 20 speaker points if you are rude or offensive.

2) I don't like to be a speaker point fairy, but I don't want to ruin your chances of breaking or something just because of speaks, so I'll try to be consistent with the tournament norms.

3) I begin judging from the moment you walk into the room.

Crossfire:

1) If you make a good argument, say it in your next speech

2) It's hard to win me in cross, but it's very easy to lose me here

Disclosure: I will disclose unless you or the tournament tells me not to. This paradigm is incomplete so don't hesitate to ask me questions before the round about my preferences.

General things:

- if you need any accommodations, let me know before the round!

- I would like to think I'm relatively competent, so don't lie about arguments

- preflow before the round

- don't hack prep

Hi! I am a former PF debater. My pronouns are she/her.

TLDR: I will vote on the flow along with your weighing. Please be respectful in the round to get good speaker points;

In round:

- Keep your cool in the round. It is not fun for me to listen to overly aggressive debaters. Speaker points reflect this.

- Your link chain should be logical and easy to follow.

- SIGNPOST and tell me where you are on the flow. It makes it easier for me to follow your argument.

- Don't paraphrase evidence. Seriously.

- Extend terminal defense in the second rebuttal and first summary.

- If something is dropped in summary I usually won't extend it to final focus.

- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH your arguments throughout the round. This is how I will know to write my ballot paired with the flow.

- Do not have a cost benefit analysis as your framework, it adds nothing.

- I will answer specific questions before the round.

- Assume I know very little about the topic.

- I will give you an extra .5 speaker point if at the start of your rebuttal you say "my opponents' case is like a golf course, there's a lot of holes in it."

- good luck and have fun! :)

Speed is fine (but must be crystal clear for high speaks), jargon is fine. Whatever you put on the flow I will evaluate but prefer evidence to analytics.

I have judged for 10+years on the local Minnesota circuit and competed in LD before that. My knowledge of specific higher level national circuit strategies is limited as I haven't judged many national circuit rounds but I am confident that I can follow as long as you keep the round clear.

Please add me to any email chains: alsmit6512@gmail.com

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

I'm a lay judge and a parent of a Blake PF debater. I will take notes, but you may lose me with too much speed and debate jargon. I will focus more on the narrative of the round rather than the tech stuff. I will try my best to not let my personal opinions influence the debate and evaluate based on the strength of an argument. I will judge to suit the round, and that will occasionally override the summary below.

Effective communication matters to me. Slow down so I can follow you train of thought and please be organized. It is important for you to be explicit about how you want me to evaluate your arguments. Make sure to have consistency throughout the round and do not bring up new arguments in final focus that were not in the summary speech. I will be evaluating the summary against the final focus when voting.

Some things are problematic for me like bad evidence ethics, misleading paraphrasing and exaggerated statements. Debate is an educational activity, and if abusive occurs in rounds it signals that it’s okay in the real world which it is not. Modeling effective and desirable discourse is key so stay away from oppressive discourse, discrimination, condescending or patronizing arguments and attitude. Speaker points reflect this and if it goes too far it will cost you the round if it is egregious.

I like your passion but please keep your debate respectful to your competition and to me.

Best of luck to you all!

===================================================================================

I stole this speaker point scale from another judge, but it is right on point for me:

30 Almost perfect, amazing

29.5 Outstanding

29 Very good, some outstanding aspects

28.5 Good, no big problems

28 Fine, no big problems

27.5 Fine but needs some work

27 Fair, needs work

26.5 Fair, lots of issues

26 Inadequate

below 26: inappropriate content or behavior, will be documented

**Updated for Blake Tournament, 2022

Hi! I am a third year out from The Blake School in Minneapolis and am now studying at the University of Virginia. This is my third year coaching. I have worked for 5 different programs and I am currently the assistant director of the DebateDrills Public Forum program, which I helped found in 2021. I debated exclusively in PF for four years, three on the national circuit. I won the TOC in 2020. I also won the Glenbrooks in 2019 and broke at the TOC in 2019 and 2018.

More than anything else, I like a clean debate that is easy to flow and evaluate. Please don't assume that because of my debate experience, you can make the round a mess and I will sort through it properly. If you remember one thing from my paradigm, let it be this.

Key Points:

- Second rebuttal must frontline any offense AND defense on any arguments you are planning to go for in the back half of the round. Clean dropped defense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded. You cannot make new frontlines in second summary. If first rebuttal is a blippy mess with bad warrants, I will give you more leeway. I know second rebuttal makes it hard to frontline and keep your options open, but I will not flow frontlines that are clearly brand new in 2nd summary and were clearly omitted from 2nd rebuttal to strategically remain ambiguous and put unfair pressure on the 1st summary.

- First summary has to extend defense if that defense was answered in second rebuttal and you are planning on going for it. (basically no new responses to frontlines in 1st final focus).

- If second rebuttal does decide to drop defense, I will allow that defense to be extended through 1st summary as sticky, however you have a MUCH better shot at winning my ballot if you extend that dropped defense in summary because if you don't, the other team still has a chance to respond to it.

- Produce cut cards when evidence is called for. If you don't, or if your cards are bracketed, you will receive a significant speaks deduction. Flagrant evidence misrepresentation will result in a loss.

- Please answer your opponents' weighing. It drives me crazy when 2 teams do their own weighing and don't respond to each other. If this happens I will make the weighing debate a wash rather than intervening on which weighing to prefer. Directly answering weighing is a very easy way to win my ballot.

- I like theory debates and have experience with theory. I default to reasonability and allowing RVIs.

- I will evaluate K arguments, but I haven't participated in a debate round in almost 2 years, meaning I may not be up to date on all the current community norms. Please make the debate clean and easy for me to follow.

- I will bump your speaks by +0.1 if you are disclosed on the wiki. Let me know before the round.

- SIGNPOST please, I mean it

- DO NOT STEAL PREP

The Rest:

Speed

I can flow pretty fast. Just make sure you are clear and signpost well. If not, I will let you know. See 3 lines above.

If you are going to spread or go fast enough that you are offering a speech doc, ABSOLUTELY DO NOT PARAPHRASE. If you are planning on doing this, strike me. Spreading paraphrased cards is impossible to flow. I can guarantee bad speaks.

I will not use your speech doc to fill in arguments I did not catch during your speech. If it wasn't clear enough in the speech, it will not go on my flow.

E-mail chain: morganswigert@gmail.com

Theory

Go for it. I ran a good amount of theory in high-school. If you read theory, you should be committed to it. Read a full shell and be prepared to go for it in the back half of the round. I will default to reasonability and allowing RVIs. If both teams are well-versed enough, then I should never have to default. How I default does not mean I am prejudicial to these paradigms when evaluating a debate about them.

I do not require an explicit extension of the shell until summary. This means that if you read a shell in constructive, you don't need to extend the parts again in rebuttal, just frontline.

I will not evaluate theory where the violation is out of your opponents' control (i.e. big schools/programs bad).

I will not evaluate tricks, 30 speaks theory, or any other dumb/abusive theory argument (e.g. shoes). If you have to ask yourself whether or not your theory argument is dumb/abusive, it most likely is.

Other Progressive Arguments

Kritiks - Go for it. I am familiar with all the main Ks, the structure of them, and how to evaluate them. That said they're a lot different in PF. I will not vote for alternatives that function as plans or counterplans (ESPECIALLY on topics where the resolution isn't even an action). Reading a "K" is not a justification for advocating any policy or action you want. If an argument like this is read on you, respond with topicality. At that point, either all of your solvency comes from the resolution (which is unlikely) or the role of the ballot becomes really important. Win the role of the ballot and you will most likely win your offense.

I haven't heard a K debate in a long time, and K norms in PF change very quickly. Be aware of this if you want to read one. Please make it simple. I can't guarantee a perfect evaluation otherwise.

Topicality - Go for it. It's a great way to respond to Kritiks, especially for crazy alts.

Evidence

Paraphrasing - Every citation you introduce in the round, paraphrased or not, should be accompanied by a cut card that you can readily produce when asked for it. If you paraphrase entire articles that are hyperlinked in a google doc, strike me. Read my bullet point in "Key Points". Bracketing is bad ethics and will result in a significant speaks deduction. I won't be afraid to drop you for bad evidence ethics.

Debater math - Call your opponents out for debater math. I'm very receptive to that as a response. x% increase in this leads to y% decrease in this is not an impact. Impacts matter to me in the context of how you weigh them. Pinning a number to your impact usually does not make it easier to weigh. Most of the time when impacts are structured like this, you are seriously falling behind on your internal links because you are not explaining how the x% increase leads to the y% increase.

Details about Speeches

Read my first two bullet points in the "Key Points" section, those are the most important

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other. This means having the same voting issues, and going for most of the same offense. If something is not in Summary, it should not be in Final Focus.

Other things

I won't keep track of speech or prep times. If something is over time, you have to tell me.

Use of oppressive discourse will result in minimum speaks, a very low chance I vote for you and I will mention it to you in my RFD. I shouldn't have to say this.

If you have questions about my paradigm or after the round, e-mail me or message me on Facebook.

For Novices:

Hello!

I just want you do debate the best you know how.

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. The difference between offense and defense:

Offensive arguments are reasons why I should vote for you. Defensive arguments are reasons why I shouldn't vote for your opponents. Examples of offense: your contentions, turns. Examples of defense: delink, no impact, etc...

You need offensive arguments to win the round!

2. Summary and final focus:

You don't need to mention everything in the summary and final focus, just the select few arguments you think are the most important.

3. Impacts:

In summary and final focus, you should always restate what your link and your impact is. For example, if you tell me in you case that the war in Yemen has killed x people. Tell me that same number in both summary and final focus. Otherwise, most judges will lose track, and it's not a very good thing when a judge doesn't know what your impact is.

After the round, we will break it down and I will talk through ways to improve.

Most importantly, have fun!

I competed in debate for three years in high school (one year of classic and two of PF), and have been coaching PF since 2013 in Minnesota. I have intermittently coached classic, and formally starting spending more time coaching it in 2023.

I value clear argumentation and the development of a strong narrative around the resolution. The strongest debaters have clear claims, warrants, and impacts that relate to a larger idea, and they are able to communicate them through all speeches.

I highly value citations and evidence ethics. I do not like paraphrasing evidence. Evidence read in the round should accurately represent the conclusions of the author.

I don't like speed.

I often find that jargon is used as a short-cut to ideas, but those ideas are never clearly developed, so the arguments get lost in the round. I highly value clear argumentation, which means jargon should be used sparingly. Clear tags will help your arguments more on my flow.

PF: It is necessary to rebuild your case in 2nd rebuttal. Summary speeches are goofy now that they are three minutes. Either line-by-line or voters is fine, but within the line-by-line you should be starting to weigh and show the interaction of ideas in a "big picture" way. If you want me to vote on an issue in final focus, it should also be extended in summary. Extension doesn't mean a name and year only, you must communicate the idea.

I will flow, of course, but the ideas need to be clear for them to mean anything on the flow.

Please no theory or Ks.

Generally speaking, I really appreciate clear analysis, don't like blippiness (fast, short, poorly developed arguments that have limited warranting), and don't like paraphrased evidence. Treat one another with respect and civility. Feel free to ask me any questions if you have them.

Background:

• I teach English 11, Journalism, and College Writing at Moorhead High School. This is my 10th year at MHS.
• I have coached speech for the past 10 seasons, primarily PA events (Discussion, Ex. Speaking, GS, Info, OO).
• I have been the Head Debate Coach at MHS since 2017 when we revived the program. Over the past seven years, I have coached PF and Congress. Our team also competes in LD.
• I regularly judge PF and Congress during the regular season and have judged Congress and PF at State for the past four years. I've also judged PF at national circuit tournaments and NSDA Nationals. In speech, I've judged all events at the local, regional, and national level since 2015.

A more detailed paradigm is below but, regardless of the event, please know that respect, integrity, and decorum are paramount. Offensive language, condescension, and aggression at any point in the round will ensure a loss/lowest possible rank. In short, be kind.

Public Forum:

• Speed is fine so long as it doesn't come at the cost of clarity. Quality over quantity usually prevails. Clear signposting and extending voters goes a long way toward winning the round. Take the time to ensure that 'dropped' contentions are fully explained.
• Please do not bombard us with cards. Evidence (directly and appropriately quoted) is important but I am far more interested in your analysis and deeper explanation. Demonstrate your understanding and show us how that evidence functions with regard to your opponent's claims and the case you are building.
• Stay cool and composed, especially during cross. Shouting matches serve little purpose. When you ask a question, I expect that you actually want to hear the answer.
• Timing - While I expect debaters to honor time restrictions and keep record, I will also keep track and will hold you to those parameters. Please don't abuse it.

Congress:

• Much like PF, it's quality over quantity for me. Two, or maybe three, sub points defending or negating a piece of legislation with sound, clear analysis is more important than a lengthy list of reasons with little time to explain. Long intros that meander before reaching the thesis, to me, are not the best use of time (I know, I sound like a curmudgeon. Have fun with it but not at the expense of dropping or rushing a point previewed in the intro).
• Demonstrate your understanding of the bill/resolution and its language. Reference specifics within the legislation (section and/or line numbers are helpful). I think it can be easy to find small, grammatical or typographical errors and point solely to that as a reason for negating (and in some cases, those issues should be noted), but please take the time to debate the merits of the legislation as well.
• Active listening - Above all, this one stands out to me the most and usually becomes my tiebreaker when ranks are super close. This can be as small as directly referencing -- by name -- previous speakers and their points or even making occasional eye contact while others are speaking . . . Active listening also means building upon established claims/reasons in your speeches and in questioning. If there's nothing new or insightful to add, it's best to move to previous Q to retain your spot in line. On a related note, please make an effort to correctly pronounce the names of your fellow competitors (and if yours is mispronounced, please correct them...and correct me too).
• POs - I tend to start POs in the top 5-6 of my rankings and adjust based on the overall organization, order, and smoothness of the round. I try to track P/R when scoring and definitely do as a Parli. Small errors can be forgiven (we're all human) if recognized but, especially late in the season, running for PO tells me that you are comfortable with the job. As such, I will hold POs to that standard much like the standards set for Reps/Sens in the round.

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Couple main things:

- Don't spread. Talking too fast makes it hard for me to follow as well as your opponents.

- Be clear and make sense. I want to hear clear reasoning and warranting that is extended throughout the debate.

- Debate the resolution. No kritik or theory.

- Have fun!

Emmie Weber (they/she/he in order of pref)

merrittzweber11@gmail.com

612-719-2259 (most efficient way to contact me)

Hello, homies.

TD;LR FOR NEW DEBATERS/PEOPLE WHO ARE SKIMMING MY PARADIGM BEFORE ROUND

I have heavy debate experience, primarily in nontraditional debate. I am comfortable analyzing all arguments, but I do have some personal biases against certain arguments (sketchy counterplans). Any speed or method of presentation are fine with me, but if your speech is incomprehensible because of clarity, it will not be flowed. I absolutely love tricky arguments, so if you feel comfortable running them, your speaks and the ballot may thank you. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever you're cool with. I'll probably be cool with it too. The best debates are debates with clash. Period.

About me (applicable to all debate forms)

I am a fifth year policy debater who has also debated PF and Congo (1 tournament each). I have coached policy for about two years now. I'd consider myself up to date in debate norms and practices. As a debater, I've run pretty much every argument, but this doesn't mean I'm a "K judge". Specifically, I've read multiple versions of queer theory, ableism, and Baudrillard (all performative). My favourite rounds to judge and debate in are rounds where it seems like all debaters are enjoying themselves. That means knowing your evidence and vibing with the round.Please don't assume that I know what you're talking about when you mention some obscure topic related acronym. This also means I'll err tech over truth 80% of the time. I have judged both PF and policy, and I am incredibly comfortable flowing and keeping up with the round.

I’m generally a very aggressive debater. Thus, my facial expressions are next to none. I’m also not professional in the slightest, but I write detailed ballots. However, you will be able to hear my cells dying if you do something I dislike in a round.

My RFDs may come off as very critical, but this is for the debaters' sakes. I will acknowledge a good debate when I see one, but at the same time, I will criticise fundamental mistakes.

My ballots reflect flaws in the debaters' speaking and kudos for good arguments. My verbal RFD will include more tech-y stuff including what I think would be an ideal strategy as well as a short analysis about the routes to victory for both teams.

Strong beliefs

I WILL NOT FLOW ANY ARGUMENTS I CANNOT HEAR.

Debate is fun, but I am still unsure if it is a game or not.

Shady counterplans are nice, but only when the planks are clear.

The 1AR is a hard speech, but I will still hold them to a high standard.

I shouldn't have to evaluate based on the small text of a card (I'll weigh it but like, it makes me sad)

There is no 3NR - that includes arguing with me after a round.

I will only flow the person who is supposed to be speaking in a speech.

EVERYTHING in a debate is up for debate. There is a difference between rules and norms, but if no tournament rules are broken, I am willing to evaluate anything that debaters are able to persuade me to evaluate. This means speech times, prep times, disclosure, etc. A note on disclosure - disclosure is necessary to have a good debate, BUT, it's understandable if your performance doesn't include words or includes works that the author wishes to remain off of public domain (in those situations, please send out your performance as a speech doc, but it is not necessary to share on openev or before round)

Speaker points will be evaluated based on what is said in the debate. To be more specific, your speaks from me will be exclusively from what you've said in a speech. THIS EXCLUDES: cross, prep, and conversations post round. However, if you bring up something from cross in a speech, I will adjust your points accordingly.

Reading the camp abolition K doesn't make you a K debater. It makes you an edgy policy debater at best.

Argument preferences

I evaluate all non-offensive arguments with even weight.

I'm a big fan of nontraditional arguments. If you think you can pull it off or if you're just sick of debating, I'm probably the judge to troll in front of. I have a very high threshold for what I consider an absurd or unweighable argument. I've won a debate once reading 12 theory violations. Very fun

It appears I have a personal preference for soft left or kritiky stuff, but I will and have voted on hard right arguments. I do think that in order for an argument to be considered performative, it needs to have some element of performance in it (ex. a dance, a poem, a song). Otherwise, I consider it a typical argument until you prove me wrong.

Repetitive theory debates make me die inside, but I'll still vote for whoever debated it the best. I prefer out of round impacts with K-ish stuff like ableism. It appears I'm incredibly techy when it comes to theory.

I WILL NOT make any arguments for you. Judge kick is not a thing for me. Nor is disregarding bad theory arguments. Reasonability on T needs to write my ballot for me (@2A's). Any argument is an argument in front of me, no matter what it is. However, simply "vote neg on presumption" is not an argument. Similarly, "this card is old" is also not an argument. I need a fleshed out idea of why I'm voting a certain way.

One thing to be noted is that I don't typically keep up with politics. My knowledge is limited to politics that are popularly shared on social media. This doesn't mean that I won't be familiar with your politics disad, but it also means that if it's more technical (ex. [x] state in the senate is key), I won't have any knowledge other than the cards provided. Good debaters will be able to use this to their advantage. That being said, full disclosure - as of 12/12/20, I have voted solely on a politics disad twice in 2 years of judging.

I will applaud arguments that take guts like performances or dedev if done correctly.

Stuff for online debating

I don't care if your camera is on. I won't deck speaks for it. I do ask that if all debaters are in agreement, there be a uniform opinion on cameras. If, for example, one debater has their camera on, that puts me in a very awkward position in determining speaks. On default, my camera will be off, but y'all can ask for my cam to be on for rebuttals to see my facial expressions.

I keep my RFDs short, so tech issues aren't a big deal for me unless we're the slowest round in the tourney.

However, send out analytics if your internet sucks. If I can't hear or read it, I can't flow it. It's helpful for everyone in the debate, and it avoids frustration. I will also never call clear. It's up to debaters to articulate their arguments properly. Similarly, if your unclarity continues through rebuttals, I will flow to the best of my ability, but I cannot promise that I will catch every word of the 2NR block that you spread.

Typically, debating in front of me will feel like you're debating in front of a wall. If y'all are able to run the round without my intervention, I will be happier and more likely to boost your speaks. There is no need to ask me to get water or to start your prep time. I will run the clock exactly as debaters in my round will. This standard is different for novice debaters in front of me. If there are novices, I will prompt debaters if needed with no negative reflection on speaks.

Tips to deck your speaks

- Being offensive or unnecessarily rude (there's a fine line between aggressiveness and being an a-hole)

- Spreading unclearly (I have a high threshold. If I can't understand you, this'll hurt you a lot)

- Spreading in a voice that is clearly different from your own (does it go up by 3 octaves?)

- Mispronouning

- Being super passive in cross x (ideally there shouldn't be any silence in cross, so if you're looking for a card, you should also be answering or asking a question)

- Cards with 2 lines highlighted

- Asking me for my case before round

- Personal attacks on other debaters/me

Things I like

- Confidence (and maybe a bit of arrogance)

- Non-repetitive debates

- Somehow including objects and/or incredible body language in your speech (+.2 speaks) Ex. "About yay size war"; "according to my pocket constitution"; prolonged, threatening eye contact with me

- Making me smile (+.1 speaks per) and/or making me laugh (+.5 speaks per)

- Including the word "coda" in your speech (+.2 speaks - proves you read my paradigm. This will apply to every debater in the round. Just because your partner says it, doesn't mean your speaks will be boosted)

Things I don't care about

- Prep time (As stated above, my timer will mirror all debaters' timers. I do not track it, but I expect for those who know better to not steal prep)

- Looking nice or presentable while speaking (I'll write comments on your presentation, but that's mainly for the sake of you knowing how to persuade lay judges)

- Swearing and slang (I'm still a teenager. It's likely I'll understand your teenage dialect)

- Asking me if I'm ready. it's awkward and strange.

- Professionalism (Y'all are high schoolers talking about stuff that is way beyond the expectations of what people think you should know. You might as well have a hell of a time while doing it)

Questions? I show up early to round. AMA

Hey,

I am a four year public forum debater, and I am so excited to hear ya'll debate!!!

Things I look for and really like:

-A good mix of qualitative and quantitative arguments

-VOTERS: What do you want me to focus on?

-WEIGHING: Why is your argument more effective than the other team's?

-IMPACTS: Why are your arguments important, and who or what are they impacting?

Also, you do not need to talk very fast or use debate jargon/lingo to win. Please keep the debate accessible so everyone can understand!

Thank you!