I did L-D and extemp for four years in high school thirty years ago. I'm now acting as a parent judge. Do not lose sight of the fact that this competition is ultimately an exercise in persuasive speaking, not merely formalized argument.

since the 2018-19 debate season, I have been volunteering with the Millard North debate team. I primarily work with the Novice PF kids after school. I am currently a UNO student and although I was not on the debate team in high school, I took the debate class and have learned more about how debate works through the several rounds and tournaments I have judged/seen this past season. I take notes on the outline of cases, only writing word for word when wording is important. Flow is taken into account, but is not necessarily the deciding factor. seeing that debaters are weighing and outweighing impacts in the debate are an important factor in my decision-making process. Clarity is something that is important to me. I am okay with fast-paced speakers, but I expect to at least be able to comprehend what is being said. I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the debate. One thing that is very important to me is that you do not drop important points. One thing I take into account, is making sure that debaters have comebacks to points that their opponents make. simply dropping a card that your opponents use without making an effort to argue it will play a factor in my decision. If evidence requires a date to be valid, a date should be read aloud. I expect opponents to be respectful towards each other although it does not impact my overall decision. Another component to debating that is very important to me is analyzing your data. Although it is on your opponent to ask questions I expect simple explanations for data, statistics, or other information you read in your speech if it is not something that is clear.

I am a graduate student in the biomedical sciences at UW Madison. In terms of forensics and debate experience I competed four years in high school forensics (Indiana) and four years of college forensics and debate at the University of Indianapolis (nearly all forensics events and Parliamentary debate). While I had moderate success in high school, I achieved great success at the collegiate level regionally and nationally.

In terms of judging experience, I have been judging for five years at the high school and college levels (locally, regionally, and nationally) in forensics, LD debate, and Public Forum. This is my third year of judging PF on the Wisconsin High School circuit.

In regards to paradigm, I view the debate room as my classroom and thus I aim to make the round as educational as possible for you and to share a bit of the knowledge I have gained over the years. I will disclose the result at the end of the round and discuss how I reached my decision and how I feel each student could do better the next time.

I expect students to be respectful to each other and myself at all times. I am committed to being respectful to you all as well. If this becomes a problem it will be reflected in your speaker points and potentially affect the outcome of the round at my discretion (this is rare and would be discussed in disclosure and on the ballot).

I do flow the round but do not have an issue with normal debate speed. Please though have your speech’s be organized (off time roadmaps are appreciated). If you are going to fast for me I will raise my hand and say speed.

I expect students to time themselves.

I do loosely flow cross and many times cross can lead to significant turning points in the round.

I really appreciate when students weigh the round for me and provide voters and will make the decision mainly on the voters you give.

I understand why arguments are collapsed in PF but in rounds that I am judging please don’t collapse until the summary.

In regards to calling for cards, I encourage debaters to do so when they feel it is appropriate. However, I will rarely call for a card unless a debater asks me to explicitly or there is an accusation of an evidence ethics violation. In that case I will abide by the policies of the tournament.

I sincerely hope this gives you some insight into the approach I take when judging debate. Please let me know before the round if you have any questions or need further clarification.

Educator who prefers a clear thesis aligned with supporting evidence and clearly defined terminology. Bonus for a healthy mix of logos, pathos, and ethos delivered at a pace that does not resemble a tongue twister... Stickler for the times. Relatively new to the world of debate.

Add me to any e-mail chains: hjclarkin@wisc.edu

I am a former high school debater so chances are anything you do won't surprise me. If your argument is well-structured and well supported you should do just fine. I'm good with progressive if thats your cup of tea. If I can't understand what you're saying and your thoughts aren't clear your speaker points and my ultimate decision will definitely be affected. In my opinion, speaker points are very inflated in recent years and as such I start everyone at 27 speaker points and increment or decrement as applicable. Please weigh your impacts or I won't care. If you go overtime in your speech I'm not going to stop you, but I will fully stop flowing and stop listening after the grace period is over. Do not tell me what to flow and do not expect me to flow any cross-ex/fire. I will not disclose my final decision (unless tournament rules state otherwise or its a panel decision) or speaker points, but I will give quick, broad critiques to everyone in the round. Most importantly: be kind to each other, be respectful, and have fun.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

• PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
• Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
• Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
• University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
• Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

• I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
• The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
• I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
• Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
• Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

• Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
• Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
• Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
• The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
• Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
• My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
• I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
• You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
• Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
• Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
• Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
• Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
• I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

• Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
• I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
• Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
• "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
• I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

• I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
• Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
• I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
• I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

• Paraphrasing.
• I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
• I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
• Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
• The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
• The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
• If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

• I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
• If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

UW Madison student with 4 years of experience in both Public Forum and Student Congress.

A few quick things about how I decide to weigh a round:

I want debaters to use evidence or logical warrants to back every assertion and avoid hyperbolic statements and generalizations such as "this argument is just dumb."

Logic is key to winning my vote because you can give me a million facts, but if you don't explain to me why those facts matter then I can't understand the argument.

For speech timing I generally give you about a 10 second grace period after time is up, but after that I will put down my pens and stop listening.

Also the delivery speed of the speech is not something I really look at in the round, but nonetheless it is still your job to make your arguments easy for me to understand.

St. Ambrose Academy judge. No high school debate experience. I typically judge several tournaments during the year and the state tournament.

Students should speak at a speed which allows them to distinctly enunciate in order to be completely understood. If I can not understand, I will ask the student to slow down.

I prefer arguments over style.

Final focus is to reiterate your case by succinctly demonstrating your "wins" during the debate.

Arguments do not need to be extended if well presented.

Analytics over evidence.

I prefer to hear debates that are true to the public forum format, convincing the public based on the merit of the arguments.

I was a PF debater in high school, have been judging for years and have recently started coaching.

PF: I am a flow judge and like to see a clean line-by-line in rebuttal. Be sure you are not only responding to the argument your opponents' present but also the impact. Tell me why they can't access their impact in rebuttal. In summary, you should begin tying up any loose ends and begin to weigh. Tell me why your opponents can't access their impacts or why your impacts are bigger and better. Lives are a good default impact that is easy to compare. Final focus should be almost entirely voters. Give me 2 or 3 good reasons why I should vote for you. Don't make final focus a mini rebuttal. A good final focus does go over the entire round or every argument. Only focus on what you think you're winning. In terms of framework, unless one is proposed by either team I will default to util. In summary and final focus, tell me how your arguments/impacts align with the framework and why your opponents aren't meeting the framework.

LD: I have less experience in LD but will be able to follow more complex arguments. Be sure to talk about impacts explicitly and how they align to your value and criterion. Focus on the topic at hand, not the nature of debate or how your opponent is debating, except if they are being discriminatory. I am a flow judge through and through. Spend time developing clear answers to values and impacts that your opponent brings up and counter any arguments brough up against your case. A lot of LD arguments can become convoluted so take time to be clear so I have a clear understanding of what you are trying to say.

Speed: I can understand speed, but the faster you talk the less I will write down. As a flow judge, talking incomprehensibly or too fast could be detrimental to your success in the round.

Roadmaps: I won't time your roadmaps as long as you identify them as roadmaps before you start talking. Keep them brief. Don't waste time by saying that the order will be con then pro during first rebuttal. If you are going to talk about specific arguments identify those in your roadmap.

Also if it sounds like you can't breath, you're talking too fast.

Overall: Be civil. Don't yell at your opponents, partner or me.

Experience: In high school I competed in PF for 4 years. This is my third year as a judge.

Preferences: I'm a typical PF flow judge. I shouldn't have to think for myself when making a decision. I don't flow cross ex, so make sure to repeat key points in your next speech. I don't find framework to be a necessity for the purposes of PF debate. If you don't state a framework, I'll assume it's a simple cost-benefit analysis. Please time yourselves.

Common Questions: Speed? OK. Off-time road maps? OK. Seating preferences? Nope. Standing preferences? Nope. Wrapping up sentence after times's up? OK.

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

they/them

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

LD Paradigm:

arguments in order that i am comfy with them are

theory>larp>K's>tricks> phil

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

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

PF Paradigm:

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

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

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

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

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

Extensions:

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

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

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

Presumption

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

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

i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.

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

Background:I did 4 years of high school PF debate, but I haven't judged in a few years. I judge on the flow.

He/him/his

LD:

I have no experience with LD, and little knowledge of the rules or conventional arguments. I'm receptive to progressive arguments, but just be sure you explain it so I can understand it, and don't assume I know too much.

Policy:

Hi! If you're in policy and you have been informed that I am your judge there has been a grave mistake, which, if not corrected, we will regret.

THE ROUND:

Your Performance:

I'm okay with speed. I like speed. I love speed. It's not a requirement by any means, but it makes judging a round much more interesting and can allow for better debate.

First and foremost your opponent is a human being. If you can't beat them while treating them with respect, you don't deserve to win.

Signpost.

Arguments:

If you don't flow an argument through summary, I cannot weigh it in final focus.

You don't need to flow all defense through summary, but you might want to flow through defense on significant turns and arguments. Ultimately your choice.

I'm fine with theory in some cases. If an argument is abusive or people are making the debate space unwelcome feel free to call that out and tell me it's a reason to drop an argument or team.

Outside of that ^ it'll be difficult to persuade me theory is appropriate.

If you have a non-default framework (ie, if you're not running a simple util cost-benefit analysis) say it at the top of your constructive.

Plans and counterplans are against the rules in PF. Don't run them. And don't disguise a counterplan as an "alternative" or your "advocacy". You must show probability in order to access an argument.

Link chains are paramount. Demonstrate their robust probability and you'll do well. Strong link chains are far better and more impressive than finding a link into nuclear war or some other catastrophic impact.

For gods sake weigh the round well. It's more stressful for me and more frustrating for you if I have to figure it out on my own.

In summary and final focus Line-by-line and grouping into voters are both acceptable options.

Recency doesn't matter unless you explain why it matters.

Meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews > 1 or 2 studies.

Cross:

I'm paying attention in cross, but not that much. It doesn't go on my flow. If your opponent makes a concession you want me to make note of please mention it in the following speech.

Evidence:

If you cite a card, you should be able to produce the card with context within 15-20 seconds. I don't run prep while people find evidence, but it just looks bad.

I only call cards if I'm asked by either team, and only if the card actually matters

Cite the author, year, and their qualifications if you can. It's much more compelling than citing an outlet (ie "according to CNN")

Speaker Points:

My mind is a mystery machine. It is a black box which even I do not pretend to understand. Your performance goes in, your speaker points come out. Is it consistent? No. Is it fair? I dunno. Speaker points are iffy to begin with.

if you have any questions come find me or email me at kannen32@uwm.edu

do it, you won't

I have experience in congressional debate and public forum. In public forum, second rebuttals should address both sides of flow. If you are in a cross examination, condescension and acting offended are not substitutes for a substantive answer or a better argument. Being rude to your opponent does a lot less for your case than a good argument. Let your opponent answer and respond professionally.

Make your contentions and sources clear without assuming I know all of the research. I appreciate clarity over assumptions that implied impacts speak for themselves.

BACKGROUND

I’ve coached Public Forum debate for 5 years. I debated policy in high school and college, as well as coaching policy at the high school level for a couple of years.

PARADIGM

I’m mostly a tabula rasa judge, therefore the following are only preferences.

ARGUMENT

I flow. Speed isn’t an issue, but you must be clear. I’m suspicious of long link chains. I enjoy theory in debate, but please develop your arguments.

Please don’t make me weigh the argument for you. Telling me that your contention outweighs because you say it does or that you save 30 million lives (when the one card you use says a larger process than your proposal may affect 30 million people) forces me to enter the debate. I don’t want to do that. Thus, I am sensitive to probability arguments.

I like topicality arguments, but few public forum debaters know how to make them because they rarely do. Be careful here.

Over the years, debaters who go line by line as opposed to big argument dumps tend to win more with me.

Extend defense in summary

EVIDENCE

Evidence quality really matters to me. Please don’t overclaim it. I’m sympathetic to evidence indicts and suspicious of evidence summaries.

Do not use ellipses to delete large amounts of evidence. If I think you’ve misinterpreted a card, I will call for it, even if your opponents don’t.

I want to hear the source first, before the evidence. Please be clear as to when the card ends and when you begin.

CROSSFIRE

I don’t flow crossfire and don’t vote on it unless it is accurately presented and developed in speech. As such, I do listen carefully to crossfire.

I have been a high school debater in the past, back in the days when we pushed around dollies of totes packed with paper evidence. While I have experience with debate I have only been back into judging for the past 2 or 3 years. At this point I feel comfortable with all the changes.

My background as a debater is in Policy debate. My teammates and I thought that tabula rasa was the coolest paradigm, so that's probably still influencing my decisions to this day. It's pretty much, I have no predispositions so you tell me how to vote.

I try to flow every argument and evidence card as thoroughly as I can but I need your help. Please speak clearly and keep your arguments in a coherent order. I can handle speed if you have a lot to cover in your speech. However, weigh that with the fact that if it was too fast for me to follow you will need to clarify your arguments as soon as possible. If you wait too long to make your arguments clear to me then it will be too late for me to fairly weigh them against others in the round.

"Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?" Sage advice I nabbed from another judge.

In crossfire I like to see that you are paying attention. Ask lots of questions and don't leave room for awkward pauses.

I'm relatively new to judging, so speed is an issue to keep in mind. I prefer hearing an argument that reflects your clear understanding of the issue, rather than a dashed-off attempt at box-ticking. Of course, if your opponents raise a point, I expect you to address it. Within the bounds of civility, I prefer you be direct and assertive in confronting an opposing argument before going on to provide new reasons to support your position.

My limited experience also means that I am not as familiar with some of the technical terms and slang in competitive debate. A brief discussion of my background is therefore probably of greater value to you than me trying to ferret out what it means to be a "Kritik".

I'm a 2nd-year law student at UW, where I'm particularly enjoying courses in tax, contracts, and administrative law. I also hold an MA in economics. Thus, I suspect I am more sympathetic to consequentialist/policy arguments than some, though this does not negate the need for them to be based on true premises. Relatedly, I prefer data over speculation.

Despite my status as a law student, appeals to authority bore me. I'd rather you try and fall a bit short with something creative than rely on a trite argument. Obviously, you must still demonstrate an understanding of this issue.

I look forward to providing a fair experience as I develop my experience as a judge. If at any point I make a mistake or am not familiar with one of the more technical details, don't be afraid to raise it--it won't count against you!

1. WEIGH

2. Weigh some more.

3. Weigh for a third time.

4. Be nice

5. Have fun

I competed for Lakeville South High School in public forum on the circuit for four years, graduating in 2019 and I now attend the University of Wisconsin Madison.

General Overview

I haven't really read anything on this topic, so don't assume that I know all of the intricate details about your argument. If it is a more complicated argument with a confusing link chain, make sure to explain it well so that I understand.

I view debate as a strategic game so I will vote for anything on the flow so long as it is well warranted, impacted, and weighed. I have no tolerance for anything rude, exclusionary, or discriminatory. If you are any of these things I won't hesitate to drop you with low speaks.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round.

Specific Preferences

1) I will vote off of my flow so make sure to signpost and let me know where you are during the round. The more clear and organized you are, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

2) I am fine with speed, although I always prefer the quality of arguments over the quantity of arguments. Please do not use speed to just dump a lot of underdeveloped arguments cause I will probably not vote on that in the round. Do not use speed as a way to exclude your opponents or I will drop you. Just in general be respectful.

3) An argument has three components: a warrant, link, and impact. Please include all of these or I won't vote on the argument.

4) Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and I think it is strategic to also go back and re-build your own case, responding to first rebuttal. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal I consider them dropped. Second summary may not make new responses to arguments made before first summary.

5) Please, please, please weigh your arguments. Tell me why your argument is the most important issue in the round. You can do this by weighing on probability, magnitude, or timeframe, but please don't use these only as buzz words thrown in during the last few seconds of your speech.

6) I don't flow cross fire but it is binding. If something important is mentioned in cross, make sure to mention it in your speech so I can consider it on the flow.

7) Evidence ethics are very important. Too many people in public forum misconstrue evidence and if I find out that you are doing this I will cross that card off my flow and drop your speaks to a 25. If more than one piece of evidence is lied about I will not hesitate to drop you. If there is a piece of evidence in contention during the round I may call for it afterwards before I make my decision. If there is a specific card you would like me to call for, mention it in round. If your opponent calls for a card in round you need to produce it in 2 minutes or I will cross it off my flow.

Who am I?

I competed for Lakeville South High School/ Lakeville Debate in Minnesota in public forum debate on the circuit for 3 years. I graduated in 2019 and I now attend the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

General Overview and specifics

I don't have much information on the current topic so please don't assume I automatically understand a more complicated argument.

I will vote for anything on the flow as long as it is warranted, impacted, and weighed.

Make sure you signpost and let me know where you are on the flow, it makes it more organized and it's way easier for me to vote in certain places.

Quality over quantity of arguments, that being said don't use speed to just throw a bunch of arguments into a round.

Please weigh your arguments, you can do this by weighing on probability, magnitude or timeframe. Just saying "we outweigh on probability" won't cut it. Fully develop why you outweigh on an issue.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round.

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

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

--

he/him

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

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

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

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

In general:

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

How I decide rounds/preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical arguments:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

I did PF for all 4 years of high school, so I'm okay with some speed, just make sure to enunciate. Don't spread. Signposting specific contention numbers is a plus. If you can't disprove someone else's impacts, outweigh them.

I don't flow crossfires, but I do listen to them. If you think something important happened in CX, bring it up in the next speech.

Don't talk/whisper to your partner during their CX or speech. It sounds like a no-brainer, but I've seen it happen enough that I need to say something.

Peter Rehani

UPDATED 11/15/19: Clarified evidence policy and paradigm comprehension reward.

UPDATED 5/25/19 for NCFL NATIONALS SPECIFICALLY: Regarding prep time, I will allow 10 seconds for teams to find cards under the requester’s prep time; after that, I will consider it an abuse of prep time and therefore it will not count.

PF TLDR: Heavily flow based judge. My biggest voters rely on extensions and clash in the round. Weigh and define the voters in the final focus. If you have a framework, I expect you to explain why you win under that framework (similarly, if your opponent's provide a framework, weigh under that too). Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

Congress TLDR: I try to weigh speaking style equally for debate--for debate, I look for clash, extension, and clear reference back to previous speakers. Avoid rehash at all costs, else you will end up on the bottom of my ballot. Speak clearly and ensure that your speeches are clear and well structured.

I strongly encourage you to read this thoroughly. PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions before the round (or after the round). I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during PF disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, it is YOUR responsibility speak up and let me know.

PF Paradigm:

• If the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow plans and both teams agree before the round to allow plans, feel free to run a plan-based debate if the topic calls for it. I find it more educational.
• In the case of an evidence question being called, I default to tournament rules; barring specific guidelines from the tournament (if tournaments require prep to be run), my policy is to begin prep as soon as the opposing team provides the exact location of the reference. All citations should include dates. Paraphrasing is a realistic way to get more evidence on the flow, but you shouldn't be using evidence as your argument -- they are there to supplement and support your arguments. Otherwise I default to not running prep for evidence exchange.
• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.
• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, like a specific concession (hint: you should do this, explicitly say "write that down").
• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.
• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech) -- i.e. extend everything that you want weighed. The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.
• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make those arguments in case. I vastly prefer to see framework at the top of all speeches, as it provides structure and a lens to understand your arguments--if you wait 1:30 into summary to discuss framework, it's likely that I'll lose it on the flow.
• For rebuttal, my general preference for the sake of sanity in organization is concise, top down, line by line responses. I feel that this is often the best way to ensure that you get through everything in the case. Rebuttal does not have to repeat everything, but should provide organized responses. Please signpost.
• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". I am an engineer and I have a fairly rigid policymaker paradigm.
• I don't flow anything called an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round. Please don't expect to generate offense off of an overview.
• I'm fine if you'd like to time yourselves with an alarm; however, for the sake of common courtesy, please turn this off if you plan to time your opponents.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'lobster' in your speech, I will give you and your partner a metaphorical 0.5 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD too.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• Please give me voter issues in the final focus. Weigh if at all possible. When I weigh for you, hell breaks loose. I cannot stress this enough.

Congress Paradigm:

• I try to judge congressional debate through as balanced a lens as possible--this means I tend to value speaking quality equally to the quality of your debate abilities.
• Typically, the biggest reason that I knock speakers down comes from non-original arguments/causing rehash in the debate. I feel that this decreases the quality of the debate and fundamentally mitigates the educational benefits of congressional debate.
• Regarding roleplay of a true Congress, I think it adds a bit of humor to the debate and leads to more engaged speakers.
• On the note of questioning, I prefer when students keep questions as concise as possible to avoid burying the speaker in a mountain of jargon.
• Clash and extension (similar to my PF paradigm) are my biggest factors on the debate side--please please please introduce clash and cite the speaker that you are extending or clashing. It helps to follow the flow of the argument as you speak, and it demonstrates you're actually paying attention.
• The later you speak in cycle, the more clash I expect to see and I judge on that metric. Similarly, I strongly dislike having 2 speeches on the same side, as it often leads to rehash. If you are speaking for the second time on the same bill, I look more closely for unique arguments and extended clash, and tend to judge these speeches slightly more harshly.
• Extension of questioning time often leads to less speeches getting in, and ultimately means that less people get a chance to speak. For this reason, I'm typically opposed to having students extend their questioning periods.
• For later cycle, I don't mind crystallization speeches but I do expect to see weighing and clear reference back to previous speakers.
• As stated above, your evidence is not your argument--It serves to support your argument.
• Speaking: gestures and clear movements add to structure and to the quality of your speech. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing, and non directed movements do not. I tend to prefer when speakers keep it simple with the style instead of over-complicating everything.
• For authorships, sponsorships, and first negs, I tend to look at fluency breaks and time more critically, as these are speeches that should be well rehearsed ahead of time.
• I view a logical argument that flows well to be on par with literal evidence from a perspective of supporting your arguments. This means that 1-you shouldn't be afraid to use logic in your speeches and 2-evidence debates will not hold up for me.

My name Is Robert Reilly

I look for a clear and substantiated case supported with evidence. I believe that most debates are won in the strength of your arguments and your detailed and specific rebuttal against your opponents arguments.

I don't like uneccesary quantifications. I also don't like unwarranted agressiveness or rude behavior in round. Debaters should win and lose with class. Thank you.

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

• TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

  LD

  Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

  Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

  Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

  Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

  Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

  PF

  • I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)

  • I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well

  • The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team

  • theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
  • Provide impact calc throughout the round
  • I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
  • CLASH IS KEY

  • Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.

  • Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.

  • 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!

  • extending over ink makes me very sad :(

• Miscellaneous:

  • Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points

  • Please please please weigh your arguments.

  • Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.

  • please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time

  • Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

I debated PF all four years in high school.

Pretty basic. Make sure you stay organized, which means clear roadmaps and signposting throughout speeches. My single biggest preference would probably just be that impact calc is really really important. Make sure you argue things in their full weight, don't leave me any space for assumptions., connect the dots for me. In a nutshell, stay organized, make impact calc a focus, and make sure you pull through your arguments.

Misc.

Please time yourselves/ hold each other accountable :)

Speak clearly, obviously... conviction, and logical presentation of arguments will get you high speaks

Don't be an asshole

I flow CX

That's about it. If you have any questions then ask!

I'm a forth year parent judge that splits time between LD and PF.

I prefer slower, in depth, articulate speakers. Not a fan of spreading. if I can't understand what you are saying, I won't flow it.

I like a good contention level debate. Make sure your arguments clash and you're not just replying to your opponents tag line. Address all of your opponents points, clearly extend your points and weigh them against your opponents. Call out your voters.

Make sure you arguments tie into an organized framework. I have a hard time weighing your arguments if your all over the place or if they don't tie back to the framework.

I enjoy a spirited debate but you must ALWAYS be polite and respectful to your opponents. If you are a jerk or derogatory to your opponent, your speaker points will take a major hit.

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.

I recently debated Public Forum at Madison West for three years ending in 2018-19 with experience in 1st and 2nd speaking (but alas, back in the anxious days of the 2 minute summary), and have more limited experience in BQ and Congress. I currently study Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (a different sort of argumentative debate, you could say). You can feel free to ask anything about my preferences before a round or to ask for clarification after a decision. I will try to disclose and give some feedback all of the time.

A few guidelines. If you are a less experienced team, doing these things may win you a round against a more experienced team. If you are a more experienced team, doing these things may help you win a round against a less experienced team.

1. Being kind and respectful.

2. Being honest and reasonable. I would greatly prefer you concede a bad point than sketchily try to defend it.

3. Explaining why whatever thing you're talking about matters. Collapsing tends to make this easier. I am a somewhat questionable judge in the sense that I will vote for an argument which is half-dead ahead of one winning on the flow if I understand the importance of the former and don't understand the significance of the latter.

4. Having a narrative. I tend to not flow final focus; instead, I like to listen for narrative. Collapsing tends to make this easier.

5. Asking closed-ended (yes/no, multiple choice) questions in cross and explaining why the responses matter in later speeches. I do not flow cross-ex but I do listen most of the time.

6. Weighing. Please make sure you have extended your impacts cleanly first before going on to weighing.

On a couple of hot topics:

Speed: I like a speed of around 190wpm (note: this is slow for debate), and I particularly like a slow Final Focus.

Theory: I think extra-topical arguments can be important, but they have to be super relevant and explained well, or I will probably vote against them.

Framework: I think too many teams just run stock util. I'm definitely on-board with seeing some well-argued deontological frameworks (I'd be willing to give out straight 30s to a team who extends, weighs, and wins under a clever form of this).

Evidence: I'm fine with paraphrasing as long as you aren't making stuff up. I also think well-warranted points made without a card can work if weighed over conflicting evidence (especially on framework).

Speaker points: 29-30 is memorable, 27-28 is par for the course, 25-26 means I thought you probably just had an off round, and below 25 means I thought you should have been a bit more respectful. If I give you a higher score I mean it as a sincere compliment!

All in all, your result in a round doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of life. Don't stress out too much, and enjoy yourselves!

I’m new to debate so I don’t have a lot of technical expectations when it comes to flow. I am learning how to flow myself, so clear contentions and speech of delivery is important.

Timing: I have a timer, and both teams should have a timer. Opponents to time each other so the responsibility of keeping to time is kept to all individuals.

Speed/ Delivery: Quality over Quantity is very cliche phrase for a good reason. I can flow with debate speed only if your contentions and arguments are clear and sound. If you are a spreader and use speed just to list things off your cards, it signals to poor communication to both the judges and your opponents. If you can lead an argument and use it to your team’s best interest, you’ve done well.

Weighing: Weigh your impacts and tell me why I should vote for you. Instead of telling me why I should discredit your opponent’s cards and vote for you instead, tell me how your impacts are superior to your opponents. Should I vote pro for free candies to puppies for quality of life, or con because puppies are dying from diabetes. Tell me how to vote, don’t let me connect the dots for you!

Speaker Points: I don’t like giving Low speaker points because we all have different communication styles and talking speeds. As Long as you are coherent and pace yourself, you won’t get below 27.5.