Tabroom.com

The Dowling Catholic Paradigm

2019 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Rochelle Achenbach Spencer HS 8 rounds

Jordan Bakken Watertown HS

Last changed on Wed March 1, 2023 at 7:15 AM CDT

Information about myself:

I competed in debate for four years at Watertown High School in South Dakota. I did a little policy, public forum, but my main focus was LD debate. I was the head coach at Tea Area School District for two years. I am currently an assistant debate coach for Watertown High School. Listed below are my paradigms for LD, Policy, and Public Forum Debate.

Note: If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round but if you do ask I will wait to make sure everyone who will compete in the round is in there so no one has an unfair advantage.

LD Debate:

I am a very traditional LD judge in that I really enjoy Value/Criteria debate. Contentions should support your Value/Criteria and the resolution for your side. For voting my very first look is Value/Criteria and is either of the sides still standing or has the other side has shown me as the judge that they can uphold not only their own but also their opponents. In a closer round then I will go to the contention debate.

Value/Criteria-If someone completely ignores the Value/Criteria in their case or in the round then they will most likely lose the round as Value/Criteria is the most important part of LD debate for me.

Voting-When walking into each round of debate, no matter what, I go in with a clean slate and each round is a new round even if I have voted for one person over the other previously and they are facing each other again on the same side. I will only evaluate the round based on what I hear not what I know so do not assume I know.

Ballots-Each round I will also give my RFD (Reason for Decision), make sure you read this if you are wondering why I voted the way I did.

Timing-As the judge, I am the one who has an official time in the round. If you want to give me an off-the-clock road map please notify me (right away!) of this or else I will start the clock and it will count as part of your speech. I will give you 30-sec intervals (until it gets down to your last 30 seconds then I will give you 15, 10, 5) of prep time so you don’t need to ask what you have left and I will let you know of your time before I start and when I stop your prep time. With stopping your prep time, remember I have your official prep time so therefore what I have is what you have left of prep time(My pet peeve is when you tell me to stop prep time and/or tell me that you have X:XX left of prep time, so not don’t do this).

Cross-X-Make sure you ask relevant questions and be polite during cross-x but remember if you are asking the questions don’t let them take the time just rambling on about things that don’t matter if they answered your question. If they answered your question don’t be rude about moving on to your next question. I really like it when students say “Thank you but can I ask another one?”

Flowing/Speed-I flow everything in the round, including cross-x so remember what you and your opponent say because it could help or hurt you at the end of the round. I am not a fan of speed at all so make sure you go at a conversational speed so I can write it down.

Electronics-I know electronics are now a very familiar thing in debate but when someone asks for your case or evidence then you better have a way to share it with them either by flash drive (if they have a computer) or have it printed out for them to look at or you might have to give them your device. Also, I am okay with using your phone as a timer in the round.

Public Forum Debate:

Voters-If I get one from both sides then I weigh both frameworks and look at who achieved both frameworks. In the last speech for each team tell me why you won the debate and achieved the framework. If there is not a framework debate going on in the round then tell me what the voters are. If the Aff has 3 voters for the round and the Neg has 3 but only 2 are the same then I will look at those two to decide the round.

Voting-Voting-When walking into each round of debate, no matter what, I go in with a clean slate and each round is a new round even if I have voted for one person over the other previously and they are facing each other again on the same side. I will only evaluate the round based on what I hear not what I know so do not assume I know. If you leave it to me at the end of the round to decide who won round one if not both teams will be disappointed with the RFD. Tell me why I should vote for you and write the ballot for me.

Ballots-Each round I will also give my RFD (Reason for Decision), make sure you read this if you are wondering why I voted the way I did. I will tell you why I voted the way I voted, I will list each voter and framework, if it comes to it, and state why the team won or lost on each point. Again write the ballot for me.

Cross-Fire-Make sure you ask relevant questions and be polite during cross-fire but remember if you are asking the questions don’t let them take the time just rambling on about things that don’t matter if they answered your question. Also, I do not like just one person or team taking over the cross-fire time. If they answered your question don’t be rude about asking a follow-up. I really like it when students say “Thank you but can I ask another one?” Also the first two cross-fires, it is solo cross-fires and I don’t like team cross-fires (that is what Grand Cross-Fire is for). If you want to ask a question and your teammate is up there then give them the question on a piece of paper.

Flowing/Speed-I flow everything in the round, including cross-fire so remember what you and your opponent say because it could help or hurt you at the end of the round. Also since I flow everything, I am not a fan of speed at all so make sure you go at a conversational speed so I can write it down but I do not want you to go too slow.

Electronics-I know electronics are now a very familiar thing in debate but when someone asks for your case or evidence then you better have a way to share it with them either by flash drive (if they have a computer) or have it printed out for them to look at or you might have to give them your device if they ask for it. Also, I am okay with you using your phone as a timer in the round.

Jacob Beresh Millard West High School

Danielle Blake Indianola

Maddy Brown Lincoln Southwest HS

Nilesh Chander King High School

Last changed on Sun October 30, 2022 at 9:05 AM EDT

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

Benjamin Cheng Lincoln High School

Last changed on Sat February 12, 2022 at 7:49 AM CDT

UPDATE 2/10/22 (Penn): I have not judged for like a year, so please keep this in mind when considering speed and progressive arguments - I don't even know how fast is fast anymore, but I think I can probably flow up to 275 wpm or so given clarity and good signposting. I also don't really know how norms have changed in the past year - but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, ran dedev in Berkeley semis so take from that what you will. I now go to the University of Chicago and coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game. I will try to be as tab as possible, although I realize it is impossible to be a truly blank slate. Debate however you would like in front of me as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have questions (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Short Version: I think the best way to adapt to former debaters is to debate like they debated themselves, and I am not an exception to this. Here are the main points you should consider:

1. I am best at judging very technical debate (and will enjoy judging it more, probably resulting in higher speaks) - however, I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed is fine as are progressive/nontraditional args.

2. I prefer teams read cut cards/direct quotes - paraphrasing is ok if you really have to, but don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics (more below).

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I don't consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

If you want some more in-depth stuff, here are a few things in my judging philosophy that I think might be important

1. I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants, not only because it’s good debate, but also because I won’t know what you’re talking about.

2. "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number and the other team's does not. Contextualize arguments like that in the form of actual comparison like magnitude. PLEASE DO COMPARISON+METAWEIGH.

3. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with proper formatting and citations. I will call for cards 1) if they are relevant to the decision and disputed without resolution or 2) if I know with reasonable certainty you are misconstruing something. I default to drop the debater on significant or clearly intentional misconstruction. If someone makes evidence ethics into a voting issue, I will vote on it regardless of magnitude.

4. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, so if you are reading any nuanced/high theory K (basically not security or cap) please slow down and explain the thesis/alt. I also am 2+ years out of doing any K debate so while I still trust myself to evaluate the debate properly, it would be in your best interest to slow down and do extra warranting.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices/teams who don't know how to debate progressive. Please use common sense and/or ask if unsure.

- I am sympathetic to disclosure theory - especially when reading it against a team with privilege who does not disclose.

5. PRESUMPTION (since this is a thing in PF now ig): Debate is a game, so my default ROTB (absent ROTB arguments) is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a structural disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, then neither of you debated better. Thus, absent arguments about why one team “gets” presumption, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

6. Postround me if you want as long as you're respectful/not holding up the tournament. I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round if you email me. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

Maddie Cook Lakeville

Last changed on Sun April 16, 2023 at 8:16 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain)

also please title the email chain using the format "Round X Flight A/B, Tournament Name, School XX Aff/Neg 1 vs School YY Aff/Neg 2"

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, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

Updated for April 2023:

Generally, I will 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 (as long as the tournament allows it). 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 big issue with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

if you're speed reading this before round, prioritize the pet peeves & evidence issues sections (and the kritiks & theory sections if that's a thing you plan to do)

Online Debate Specific:

Go a little slower than you normally would.
Record all of your speeches. I won't let you redo a speech if someone's audio gets cut off or computer crashes. If that happens, continue giving the speech and send the recording to everyone in the round.
I will be annoyed if you're late to an online round.

General:

The only time you need a trigger 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 fine as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Like I said earlier though, I prefer slower rounds.
I will judge the debate you want to have, but like, be smart about it.
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards is the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes. Paraphrasing is bad. I'm almost always going to vote for paraphrasing bad if it's an argument that's made in the round.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. For some reason, me writing this in my paradigm has resulted in teams sending their docs to me privately, which is not the point. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that we don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Your cases should be sent to the email chain in the form of a Word Doc with exactly what you said in the debate.
I despise Google Docs - if you use Google Docs to write your cases, that's fine, but just download the doc as a Word Document and send it to the email chain instead of sending a link or sharing the doc. Similarly, I dislike when teams use a shared Google Doc for evidence sharing instead of just sending docs. You need to share evidence with your opponents in a way that guarantees you're not able to edit the doc after sending it.
It shouldn’t take you more than 30 seconds to locate a card, and if it takes more than 2 minutes, I’ll strike it from the flow and start dropping your speaker points.
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 in PF - 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 will 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.
Put me on the email chain (madelyncook23@gmail.com).

Speech Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. I’m more lenient with defense, but you should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for.
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 even better. 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.
I love war scenarios with good link chains. I also really enjoy structural violence impacts and others that may not link into traditional scope weighing, but I'm kind of sick of hearing "this group comes first for x reason and we should win because we talked about it first." You need warrants for this if you want me to evaluate it.
I generally hate econ impacts, especially if the terminal impact is a string of statistics that somehow terminalizes to lifting millions of people out of poverty without any link to your specific argument. I particularly dislike arguments where the impact is something like “a 1% increase in GDP leads to a 1% reduction in poverty” or whatever unless there are very clear warrants for how that impact happens and how your argument causes this.
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 26 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.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates in PF, and I do not want to judge more theory debates in PF. But of course you're not going to listen to that, so if you ignore the previous sentence and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad.
I probably should tell you that I generally 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.
“Our coach didn’t teach us how to respond to theory” is not an argument. Same with “our coach doesn’t let us disclose” if there’s no proof that’s true. It's just an argument; answer it the same way you would arguments on the topic.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are also not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
Refer to the pet peeves section of my paradigm - a lot of those bullet points were added after watching bad theory rounds.

Kritiks:

I’ve also seen a ton of terrible K debates. 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.

You need to solve or do something. If I have no idea what voting for you means, then you do not have offense. Reading a K does not excuse you from having to organize/structure your speeches in the same way you would in a traditional round. "Creating discourse about structural violence" is not sufficient solvency.
I also need you to walk through the links pretty extensively. If it’s a topical argument, I want to hear exactly how you link into it. If it’s critiquing the debate space, then I want to hear exactly what the problem is and how your argument solves it. You get the point, just be thorough.
When extending the K, don't just reread the entire thing.
I've heard a lot of K teams get upset when other teams actually answer their arguments. You should only be reading a K if you're prepared for actual K debate.
I can tell when you just grab something off the LD or Policy wiki without doing any of your own card cutting or editing. Probably don't do that. Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself.
If your argument is just "vote for me because I am x identity" or "vote for me because I talk about x issue" or "if you don't vote for me you don't care about x oppression" or "if you really cared about x issue you would concede the round and have a discussion," you will probably lose.
I'm not familiar with most K lit. I've done some reading, but it was either for college NPDA or just for fun. If I was you, I'd assume I know nothing and over explain rather than under explain.

Answering Kritiks:

There’s this annoying trend in PF where instead of answering Ks (especially identity Ks), teams will just concede the round. I think this is silly. Ks are arguments, too. While I don’t really like judging most K debates in PF, I would rather judge it than watch a team concede. Even if you don’t have experience debating against a K, try to answer it to the best of your ability. I know not every school teaches how to answer these arguments, so I’m sympathetic to weaker responses even if I almost always vote on the flow. Do your best and you’ll get better speaker points than if you don’t try to answer it.

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 if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
I take away speaker points if you’re late to round, especially at online tournaments.
You can ask questions after round if there's anything I didn't mention in my RFD/if there’s something you want me to clarify, but don't argue with my decision. I will literally never change my decision, and it's just going to annoy me.
Pre-fiat and post-fiat arguments do not exist.
Long off-time roadmaps. I don’t mind a brief one, but there’s no reason it should be longer than “aff then neg” or “starting on the neg” unless there are multiple off-case positions.
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.
I don't really want to vote on a blippy turn from rebuttal that you blow up in the second half that all of a sudden has evidence, warrants, impacts, and link-ins that weren't there before.
The phrase "small schools" is so over-used. It is not a get out of jail free card to avoid theory and K debate. While I recognize there are some disadvantages to being from a smaller program, "we're from a small school" is not an argument, and listening to a debate over whether your school is a "small school" or not is literally the last thing I want to do.
If you have extra time in cross that you're not using, I'll probably get annoyed if you spend that time asking things like "how's your day going" and other forms of small talk. I'd rather you just end cross early.
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 read a nuclear war impact, know that nuclear war is not a terminal impact. Explain why nuclear war is bad, and if you're terminalizing it to extinction, actually explain how it leads to extinction. This goes for every impact but I see this issue most frequently with nuke war stuff.
Most of the time, an IVI is just an argument. You don't need to treat it differently than anything else. For me this is just the wrong way to deal with the issues that provoke most IVIs.
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 did okay, 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.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.
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.

Speech:

Most of my experience is in debate, but I did do some speech in high school. I'm definitely better at judging PA events, but that's not to say I don't enjoy other speech events. I have a lot of respect for well developed performances and speeches regardless of your rank, and I will probably care way more about the content and the thought that went into the piece than things that are a little more arbitrary.

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

Andrew Dunn North 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 25, 2021 at 8:42 AM CDT

Experience: I am a senior at the University of Iowa where I study political science, international affairs, and philosophy. I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I have experience and working knowledge with all speech and debate events. I have previously coached in Des Moines, Iowa, and for NSDA China. I am currently unaffiliated with any team, school, or individual competitors.

PF: I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after the warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.

Important things:

- If at all possible, I would like to start rounds early. I understand that's not always possible or teams need to prep, so I'm just appreciative if we do start early. No problem if you need to take your time though.

- While in evidence exchange, I expect all students to have their hands on screen and mics unmuted to ensure that time is not used for prep.

- Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.

- FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing. Impact calc within every speech is most persuasive.

- Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.

TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.

LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. On the rare occasion, I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I'm almost always good with speed. I prefer competitors disclose to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points.

Joel Eckloff Lincoln East HS

Jeremy Fitzpatrick Johnston 8 rounds

Dakota Folkerts Lincoln Southeast HS

Last changed on Sat November 6, 2021 at 4:47 AM CDT

I debated for Sioux Falls Lincoln for 4 years. I have competed on the National policy circuit during my last two years of highschool on a regular basis. I am currently the assistant coach at Lincoln Southeast high school where I coach Policy, LD, with some PF and Congress. I am most familiar and comfortable with progressive LD and more Traditional Policy; however I will listen to almost anything if it is explained and argued well.

If there is an email chain, add me: dfolkert@nebrwesleyan.edu

LD:

-I prefer contention level debate over standards debate, so any effort to consolidate the standards debate would be much preferred.

-I default to tech over truth

-I encourage creativity with K's, DA's, and CP's to be run within LD, as long as they are run correctly and give me a reason for why that type of position is justified.

Policy:

K aff vs Policy aff: When I was debating, I stuck to traditional policy debate with topical policy aff's over K affs, therefore I prefer to see that type of debate. I prefer to hear a well-warranted and thought out policy aff's over a jargon heavy K aff that provides no justification outside of "the USFG is bad" or the "structure is flawed". I understand and value the importance of an applicable K aff to the topic, but as a general principle I am more persuaded by a policy aff, especially in Nebraska when unfortunately a Policy Aff is rarer then a non-topical K aff.

DA's/ CP: I love to see a great CP and DA combo to an aff over a 1-off K in the 1NC. I feel like a good CP and DA is undervalued in policy debate currently, and would love to see them make a come back. Therefore, from a neg strategy perspective, I will find a team reading an applicable CP over a generic K (such as cap, imperialism, anti-blackness, identity politics, set col, etc.) more persuasive.

K: Again, I am not the biggest fan of 1-off K's in the 1NC, however I do believe K's have a place in a debate when in conjunction with other off-case positions. If you plan on reading a K, either A. read other off case positions such as T or DA's, or B. if you do read a 1-off K, PLEASE do case work. Show me how the K interacts with the aff by indicting the solvency of the aff with the K in the 1NC or turning it, etc. For the K itself, I prefer more pragmatic alts over vague Utopian ults. I am a fan of kicking the Alt and using the K as a linear DA.

T: I love a great T debate, as do most judges! However, key word 'great'. Reading shells in the 1NC and 2AC are fine, but after those speeches I do not want to hear shell extensions, I want to hear real analysis and comparison between your interp and your opponents. I default to competing interps over reasonability.

FW: Against K aff's, I want rather see a good FW debate over a K vs K debate. Again, I would rather see real analysis over shell extensions after the 1NC and 2AC. For me to pull the trigger on FW, I really need a TVA. As I did traditional policy debate over K debating high school, you need to go a little slower on FW and explain arguments more as I am not as familiar with them as I am with more traditional theory and T arguments.

If you have any specific questions about arguments, please ask me before round.

Victoria Freeman Lincoln HS

Last changed on Fri January 3, 2020 at 3:03 AM CDT

General Notes-
* I am in tab much more often than I'm behind a round at this point. As such, I may be rusty on some more specific lingo/ trends(read as: don't just label an argument a RVI and expect me to accept it on face, explain why it's important)
* I have a disability that has varying levels of impact depending on the day; when it's flaring up, I might have trouble flowing spreading, or processing information at that speed. If you don't want to exclude me from the round, it'd be helpful to check in with me before the round starts. I'm also super happy to talk about it if you have more specific questions :)

PF-
Arguments- I'm very open to whatever style of argument you want to make in round, so long as you do it well. Don't just dump cards, actually offer in round analysis and engage with your opponent's arguments. If something is important to the round, I expect you to spend time on it. Regardless of the style, I need to see some sort of weighing mechanism in round- that could come from an observation or impact calc (or whatever else) so long as I have some sort of idea what I should be valuing. Absent of that, I'll default to generic util weighing. I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing, but will listen to either.
Speed- I prefer a moderate, not ludicrous, pace. If you want to go absurdly fast, that's fine, but understand I'll miss some details. I think it's really important for speed to be justified by content- so, if you're talking fast enough that you have to reiterate the same underview three times because you're out of content, I'd rather you slow down. At any speed, I really value clarity. It's also good to know that some days I physically won't be able to flow super quickly, so it wouldn't hurt to double check with me about speed before round.
Round Structure- First and foremost, I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the flow. So, make sure, in front of me, you're allocating your time in a way such that you're able to address everything important, as dropped arguments are essentially conceded.
I don't expect line by line argumentation in summary and final focus. Instead, the round should be narrowed down to the main points. This is where I expect a lot of weighing and analysis, not just 50 author names back to back.
Other things- I am a fan of content warnings before round if you're running anything dealing with something sensitive. I am not a fan of hateful or discriminatory things being said in round, and will hesitate (heavily) to vote on anything racist/sexist/ableist. Additionally, problematic things (like racism/sexism/ableism, misgendering your opponent, anything that makes the space hostile to your opponent) will be reflected in your speaker points.

LD-
Standards/ Framework- I don't have strong feelings any one way about V/Cr vs Single Standard and/or RoB etc. I initially learned LD through a pretty traditional framing, so I tend to track that way myself, but, I'm open to whatever you want to do if you explain in. If you're running some philosophy that's out there or uncommon, it would benefit you to explain it clearly.
Theory- I'm down, but it actually needs to be theory (read as: "Speed is unfair/ exclusionary" isn't an argument I'll evaluate; Interp, violation standard, voter framing is)
Ks- See above, I'll happily hear out a k with structure that actually functions within a round. YOU HAVE TO OFFER A LINK or there's no way for me to evaluate the K
A Priori/ Prima facie/ probably other things- justify why it matters and I'll hear it out.
**As a general interpretation, I view theory/ks/ a priori arguments etc as arguments. They aren't some sort of magical trap card that automatically win you the round. They are arguments that need to be interacted with and extended like anything else. Reading an ableism K in the NC and then leaving it there isn't going to win me over. Your opponent answering an identity K with arguments doesn't make them inherently bad, they're interacting with an argument you put out
Solvency- I don't inherently think solvency is important in LD. This doesn't mean that I won't hear out solvency arguments, but you need to justify why I should care about solvency for it to be a voting issue for me. "The aff doesn't offer any solvency" on its own isn't enough for me to vote on.

CX-
**I really don't judge policy all that often. If I'm behind your round, things were likely pretty desperate from a tab or judge hire perspective. Despite that, I will do my best to adjudicate the round- you'll probably just need to slow down a bit on taglines and important analysis for me.

Carla Graciano Sioux Falls Lincoln

Kris Hayes Sioux Falls Lincoln

Matt Howard SF Roosevelt

Charlie Jackson Millard North HS

Alexander Johnson Norwalk High School None

Gabe Josko SF Roosevelt

Kirk Kelloway CAM HS 8 rounds

Parker Klyn Ames

Last changed on Fri May 26, 2023 at 4:17 AM CDT

NOTE: I am always happy to provide additional feedback if desired (feel free to email me at klynpar@gmail.com). Speech and debate is awesome, please stick with it if you’re reading this especially if you’re in Iowa

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions

Am decently experienced in Congress and Speech as well, I coached national qualifiers in each (1 House, 2 Extemp, 1 POI) in my first year as coach

Favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and OO

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~

Public Forum paradigm

[NATIONAL CIRCUIT ONLY — local competitors just do your best, your coach should’ve taught you how to win PF at a fundamental level, I give really extensive and constructive feedback]

- Include me on the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com)

- Just win baby! [Win the round. There are a million different tactics and strategies and paths to victory in PF. If you genuinely believe you won a debate round, you should be able to tell me why and how you won.]

- I’m a tech judge (tabula rasa and all that), I flow on my computer using Flexcel

- Best way to win the round is to do the work for me

- Be kind and respectful, it would take a lot for me to change a ballot because of this but I’m pretty quick to change speaks if it’s rough

- Extend everything you’re going for through every speech except 1st rebuttal

- I vote on impacts/voters unless the framework set forth is something other than stock benefits/harms or cost-benefit analysis

- Speed is fine, if for some reason I can’t understand you I’ll either say “SLOWER” or “LOUDER”, obviously if you're spreading just send a speech doc

- I don’t flow cross but I pay attention, it’s fun, you should be able to extemporaneously explain things

- Instances where I intervene: (1) being abusive (2) theory debates (full explanation below, I'd rather you just do a substance debate) (3) fabricating/misrepresenting evidence (although I'd just prefer the other team call it out, it sucks but if I'm sitting here as a judge and I'm like "that seems false to me" I feel like you should have those instincts too.... I'm not one of those judges who calls for like nine cards after FF)

-Speaker points: 0/minimum = abuse, 26 = novice, 27 = needs improvement, 28 = solid, 29 = excellent, 30 = a top debater at this specific tournament the score is given out; I give speaker points for clarity and quality of argumentation (if there's a low speaker point win, the low team won "on the flow" but the higher team were generally better speakers and arguers and probably won the "truth" debate but not the "tech" debate). I don't bump speaks for anything arbitrary, it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw bc another team mentioned a le epic meme in their speech

- Theory: [TL;DR: I would rather you just do a substance debate. I will vote for it if you convince me on a personal level that the progressive argument is worth voting for, not necessarily on the flow. Feel free to strike me if that spooks you haha, no worries.] Full explanation: On a personal level, I don’t like theory, I think the fundamental goal of PF is having high school students learn as much as possible about a specific topic/resolution and debate it. Theory goes against the initial reasons PF was created, which were talking about issues pertinent to the US and the world in a literal “public forum” — nobody’s going on Crossfire or interrupting city council meetings to talk about the inequity between speakers because life/backgrounds/resources are always going to be inherently unequal. To be clear, my perspective is one of somebody who grew up in rural Iowa in a town of 9,000 people and as the current head coach of a forensics program for a school where 56% of our student body is economically disadvantaged — I’m aware of inequality between schools and debate programs. I’ve seen teams from my school lose preposterous and arbitrary theory debates to schools with $45k yearly tuition and ten debate coaches (I’m coaching alone), debates where the primary justification for the progressive argument was “supporting small schools.” Do you see how ridiculous that is? And if you're not running a specific theory shell in each round that warrants it, it feels extremely cynical and exploitative. For example, if you're running Round Reports theory, why aren't you running that shell every single time a team doesn't do Round Reports? Because you know some teams are better at responding to it than others and some judges are better at evaluating it than others -- and if your progressive argument is a strategic move rather than a genuine gripe/concern/issue, it completely undermines your argumentation from the start. Anyway, my attempt to “bridge the gap” between not personally liking theory but wanting to recognize all legitimate debating styles is this: I become truth > tech when it comes to theory. If you convince me as a person, not as a judge/flow-er, that you have won under a progressive argumentation framework, then I’ll vote for you. So in the above example of a team with ten coaches at a private school with $45k tuition running disclosure theory against my program using "small schools" as the justification, who do you think would win? [With all that being said, I am pro-disclosure and think it's a good convention that PF has developed recently.] Most of the above also applies to Ks.

--------------------------------------- [PFers stop reading] -------------------------------------------

Speech

Interp: Please have a clear theme or focus to your performance (It's why piece selection is so important -- please don't get frustrated if I downgrade a performance if I don't enjoy the piece. A prurient example of this is me judging my local circuit's DUOs one year. There was a performance of an excerpt from "Little Women" that was performed/acted beautifully... but the script was just horribly boring and the outdated language + no context for the full story of the [excellent!] novel just made it impossible to get into, so I never ranked them very high despite their great talent. In other words, be entertaining and compelling!)

Extemp: This event doesn’t leave a lot of leeway, the only consistent thing I see people do that hurts them is not answer the question accurately even if they have solid speaking/organization/etc.

Public Address: Persuade me and/or inform me, and just generally be compelling and/or entertaining, if you don’t do those things you probably won’t finish very high

Impromptu/Spont: Not telling (:

Congress

Bills: Please make them workable and just generally make them make sense, I hate disorganized and unfocused bills that have zero real-world implication

1st aff: This speech has no excuse to not be rock-solid because you technically have had a week-ish to write it, I’m way more willing to drop 3s and 4s on 1st affs that aren’t effective, give me your impacts clearly and show me why on a human level this bill is needed

1st neg: Need to respond to 2 things: the 1st aff and the bill itself, please do both otherwise it’s not worth the time and either the bill or the 1st aff’s arguments go unchecked

Subsequent speeches: These should be extemporaneous and directly respond to arguments previously made, do not be redundant with previous speeches on your side, I value speaking and argumentation above all

Questioning: Why are Congress competitors so afraid to ask questions? Most Congress speeches at least on the local Iowa level have major flaws either in argumentation/logic or in interpretation/workability of the bill, please call these flaws out if you see them, it’s not disrespectful or bad decorum to use your designated questioning time

Presiding: If I can essentially forget that you exist, you’ll get a really high rating, but if you’re constantly asking the parli for help/stumbling over procedure/messing up recency you won’t be ranked at all

Overall: Give me impacts, actually work really hard in preparation both before and during the session, speak well, and run an efficient and compelling debate

Lincoln-Douglas / Policy / World Schools

Minimal experience, but I'm always excited to learn more! I'm confident in my ability to evaluate arguments and debate but I'll probably get lost if you use excessive event-specific jargon, so please hold my hand a little

Triniti Krauss West Des Moines Valley HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 24, 2021 at 11:36 AM EDT

September/October in LD: If you refer to Africa as a country or participate in creating an ideology that the entire African continent is homogenous, I will decrease your speaker points. Please avoid preaching false stereotypes about other nations/groups of nations or making assertations about a country's access to resources or economic status without knowledge or evidence.

Hi, I am Triniti.

Simpson College (Studying Global Management & Political Science)

Public Forum Coach at Valley High School

Contact: TrinitiKrauss@gmail.com

I am on the Simpson College Debate team and have competed at the collegiate level in Parli, PF, and LD. I graduated high school in 2018 and since then, I've judged many debate tournaments, primarily LD and PF. In high school, I competed in WSD, PF, and LD, and Congressional Debate.

The Short Version: Run anything you want. Know what you are running. Explain and develop your arguments well. Interact with your opponent (pretty please). Don't be a jerk. Favorite debate to watch for LD: LARP. Favorite PF judge to watch: One where people know what they are talking about.

What I LOVE to see:

- Clash. Clash. Clash. Did I forget to mention clash?

- Impacts. Love ‘em.

-Tell me why I should prefer your warrants, impacts, and sources over your opponents.

- Tell me how I should weigh the round.

- Links - crazy right? I want to see the 'how' we get from the resolution to your case to your impacts.

LD Specific Paradigm:

If I have a trad Debater against a non-trad debater: Debate jargon is less important than responding to every component of your opponent's case. Example: If your opponent says "do both" instead of "perm," respond to the argument because I will still evaluate "do both."

Case Style: Run anything as long as you can run it well.

T: Go for it. I want to see a developed T-shell and I will vote on T. However, using T as a strat to time-suck is annoying. Because I think that it is annoying, I am happy to vote on an RVI. I would prefer that T be used when there is a very clear violation.

Theory: I’ll buy a well-developed theory shell.

Tricks: Not my favorite.

Kritikal Debate: Have fun. Show relevance/link to resolution.

LARP/CPs/DAs: Love it. Probs my favorite. Just make sure your links/impacts are there.

Speaking: Just speak clearly. Slow down when you read tags/authors of cards, please.

FOR THE LOVE - know what you are talking about - as in, understand the arguments that you are making.

Just don't be a jerk.

Kendall Larson Harrisburg HS

Last changed on Tue February 28, 2023 at 2:17 PM CDT

I did Public Forum debate at Harrisburg High School and I participated in all 4 years of high school. I didn't really participate in any other event, so if I'm judging you in speech or a different debate event I won't be as great a judge. I have limited experience with LD and Extemp, but not much else. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. In short, speak clearly, be nice, and follow the rules.

--PF--

Speaking:Being concise and well-spoken is important, but being respectful is equally important. I won't hesitate to drop speaker points if you are blatantly condescending or use insulting language.

Flowing: I flow pretty well and will vote off the flow most of the time. Other factors like speaking matter somewhat but the flow and pulling your arguments through are super important to me. Often times when cards are brought up in quick succession I don't write the card's names down as I am more focused on flowing the content of the card, so telling me what the card says in later speeches is key to keeping it on my flow. Cards are important, but big ideas and refuting the actual arguments your opponents make matters to me.

Evidence: I expect both teams to come to the round prepared with all possible evidence. If you use a card in the case please have the uncut article available, preferably with the used section highlighted. If you cannot produce the evidence promptly (within a minute or two) I will assume you don't have the evidence and evaluate the round as such. I will adhere to the rules, meaning if you do your own math, misconstrue an author's intention, or do anything else in violation of evidence rules I will not weigh the evidence in my decision.

Prep time: When you call for cards, I will start YOUR prep once you have received the article/card you requested. I will end prep time when you return it. I will start prep before you are given the requested card if you are prepping while you wait.

Framework: If a framework is given I will vote on it as long as it's not refuted effectively enough and is carried through. If you drop your framework in the summary and then bring it up in FF I won't be voting on it. If you can't adhere to their framework then give me another weighing mechanism or another framework. If a framework is abusive, tell me it's abusive and why. Don't get too deep into the framework debate.

Summaries: I prefer line-by-line when it comes to summaries as it's easier to follow in the flow, but using voters or another mechanism won't kill you by any means. Whatever you do, always signpost as much as you can, and don't go too fast. If an argument is important in the round, be sure to talk about it in summary, because if it's dropped in summary I won't be voting on it.

Final Focuses: Don't lie about what people said in the second FF to try to win the round.

--LD--

I have judged two rounds of LD debate in my life, one novice and one varsity. Do with that information as you will.

Tony Le Lincoln Southwest HS

Devyn Leeson Ames

Coleton Logue Southeast Polk HS

Lydia Magalhaes Ottumwa

Last changed on Sat February 4, 2023 at 2:47 AM CDT

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Speed: I don't like speed. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused. Either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

You should stand when speaking. It is not something that will impact your perception or speaker points, but research shows that you speak better when you stand up. Since this is a speaking activity, you should want to maximize your ability to speak well.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Chad Meadows Marist School None

Angelica Mercado Washington HS

Last changed on Fri March 3, 2023 at 2:39 AM CDT

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Doug Miller Washburn Rural HS

Last changed on Sun March 12, 2023 at 12:22 AM PDT

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts on your own case.
Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes conceded link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Jeffrey Miller Marist School

Last changed on Sat October 22, 2022 at 5:24 AM EDT

Jeffrey Miller

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

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

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

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

What does a good debate look like?

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

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

What role does theory play in good debates?

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

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

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

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

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

How should evidence exchange work?

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

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

What effects speaker points?

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

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

Adrian Mitchell Johnston

Dylan Morgan Lincoln East HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 29, 2023 at 5:21 PM CDT

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach and study poli sci and IR. I'm a very average flow judge.

read a content warning if you are graphically depicting something intense

ethics > tech > truth, if I think that voting for you makes debate more exclusionary, in a manner I find indefensible, I will have no problem dropping you without a technical justification. :/

add me to the email chain morgandylan183@gmail.com

I look to framework, then weighing to see where to start. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do that though! . If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact wins. I default to probability, then scope. Strong defense is important to me.

Flip and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to the room

Don't shake my hand, plz pre flow before the round, -.5 speaks if you don't do either of these :)

Speed: I can keep up but I don't really want to. Spreading/reading 4 contentions is a straight-up annoying strategy, don't rely on lame stuff to get a leg up on your opponents. Make accommodations if your opponents ask you to, this includes not going fast.

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no. (note: cards can be abused, if your opponents string together words and phrases to make a new argument, that is a legitimate reason for me to strike it from the flow)

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards butproperly explain each argument, I will not get blippy responses on my flow, and I shouldn't have to. Explain your arguments.

I'll dock speaks if you prep steal

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides weighing (that's not new in 2nd ff)

I don't like disads, read turns.

I love logical warranting and smart analytics. I love good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff and making up good arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

I love when you make things on the flow interact with each other, so comparative weighing, conceding a delink to get out of turns, their nonunique on our case takes out a different argument they make, etc.

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Progressive Args

I'll listen to and vote off anything but ngl I prefer substance debates. Slow down, I have a hard time properly flowing and evaluating these less familiar args. I require sending speech docs for these.I actively discourage running these args just to win, I’m not a hack. :,(

If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory, but prob not the way you'd like me to.. I'm kind of familiar with K's but tbh I’m biased towards substance. Those are the rounds I want to judge, unless one teams being horrible.

Bryce Piotrowski Lakeville

Last changed on Wed March 29, 2023 at 2:50 AM CDT

Updated 3/29/2023

Table of Contents:

Who am I?
Round Logistical Information
TL:DR
Public Forum
Lincoln-Douglas and Policy
Congress
Speech in general
Extemp specifically

Who am I?

Pronouns: he/him/his

I am currently the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas, and have held this position since August 2020. Before that, I was a college student at the University of Minnesota where I ran our NPDA team (think extemp policy) and coached Public Forum for The Lakeville Debate Team from 2016 through 2020. In high school, I competed in Public Forum and Congress for Madison Memorial High School in Madison, WI.

I also run a summer institute for Public Forum at the University of Minnesota called Public Forum Boot Camp. Our website is here!

Round Logistical Information

Please make an email chain. Put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com (for PF debates) and bryce.piotrowski@gmail.com on all email chains. Please use the following format in the subject line: "Round X Flight A/B, Tournament Name, School XX A/N 1, School YY A/N 2"

If I am judging you in PF or LD, you should create an email chain, send speech docs directly before the speech with evidence (not your analytics or paraphrasing) read during the speech in that document, in a format that does not permit you to edit the document after it is sent so that I can evaluate claims about evidence made later in the round (and, no joke, so that we can prep you out). You will get better speaker points if evidence exchanges are done via the email chain. If you're interested in getting a speaker award, I would recommend you do this - otherwise, you'll probably get no more than a 28.8.

I will start the round no more than 5 minutes after I get to the room, and as close to the round start time as possible. If you show up late, especially if pairings have been out for half an hour, I'm not going to give you extra time to pre-flow your case. Generally, as soon as I open my laptop to the ballot screen and get out pens, paper, and my timer, I'm ready to go, and expect that you are too. Flight 2 - please do the coinflip, pre-flow, and set up the email chain during flight 1.

Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision. I encourage you to pay attention to the RFD, take notes, and ask questions after the RFD (while a) being respectful of the fact that I have just spent a lot of my time and energy evaluating the arguments you've made during the debate, and b) being cognizant of the fact that the tournament has to move on at some point). I will not disclose your speaker points, but I average around a 28.4.

TL;DR: Debate to win and have fun.

I have been involved with speech and debate since 2014. I think about debate a lot, judge often, work in tab at about 1-2 tournaments per month, and have a deep respect and appreciation for how difficult and time-consuming debate is.

I will evaluate arguments on a primarily technical level, though it's easy to win on the flow if your arguments come from a sound literature base and are more true. I strongly believe debate is a competitive academic game that teaches important real-world research, critical thinking, argumentation, and public speaking skills, and that debate's competitive nature ought be embraced rather than ignored.

I have no strong preferences on the arguments you read in round. I frequently become cranky in rounds that are poorly executed strategically, where teams are rude to each other, where evidence exchange/prep time takes far longer than the allotted time, and those rounds with bad arguments (bad meaning: constructed from poor evidence, missing critical internal links, etc.). I strongly enjoy judging debaters that work hard, no matter the strategy.

Please be kind to both me and your opponents. We're all here to have a good time, and I'm very over the disdain with which many feel obligated to treat their opponents or their arguments during rounds. I am a terrible judge for you if you're not trying your best and engaging constructively with your opponents.

PF-specific:

I'm a relatively typical tech-oriented judge. I want to see well-researched debates about the topic with lots of analysis of evidence and clash. I have been known to destroy the speaker points of teams who do not debate about the topic.
I have no issue with speed. I have a tremendous issue with clarity. I will not flow off of a speech document. I will not be able to keep up with analytics or paraphrasing delivered quicker than a fast conversation.
Most circuit paraphrasing I see is academically dishonest and more teams should be willing to stake the round on "that's not what your evidence says". At minimum, you should have a doc with evidence ready to send before every speech. I would strongly prefer cut cards read every time you introduce a new piece of evidence.
If you are reading evidence that is less than 2 sentences long or takes you less than 10 seconds to read, reconsider. Make fewer arguments, but read more evidence to support those arguments that are really good.
In PF in particular, I would rather not listen to theory, though if that's the debate you want to have, I'm very confident in my ability to evaluate the debate. Your speaker points will go down if you initiate a theory debate in PF.
Critical arguments, structural violence contentions, and/or Ks with alternatives are all fine with me. You still need to win a link and an impact to win the debate. A mere discussion of structural violence is not, in and of itself, an impact. I would strongly prefer these arguments be related to the topic.
Second rebuttal should probably begin to condense the debate. First summary should almost definitely begin to condense the debate. If second summary goes for everything, there is an 80% chance that the first speaking team will win the debate.
I do not understand what the phrase "sticky defense" means, and at this point, I'm too afraid to ask. If your opponent has made an argument after the constructive speeches, you must respond to that argument in the speech immediately following your opponents having made that argument. If you do not, I will proceed as if you have conceded that argument. If your opponent has failed to respond to an argument and you want me to vote on it, it should be a substantial portion of your speech. You cannot extend an argument from the rebuttal to the final focus and expect me to vote on the argument.
Weighing, defined as argument comparison, should be derived from that argument's relative strength of link and the magnitude of that argument's impact. Please do lots of weighing.

LD/CX-specific:

I will flow the debate carefully. I will not flow off of a speech doc, and I flow on paper, which means that I need pen time. If you're reading analytics or your theory blocks, slow down.
I will disclose a winner and loser and give a complete RFD. I will not disclose your speaker points. I average a 28.4.
More than fine with traditional LD and policy strategies, including values and value criterion, plans, counterplans, disadvantages, and case arguments.
I'm fine with theory, but you can't go your top speed and expect me to catch everything. I use the doc to read evidence - not to backflow your analytics. I have a soft spot for creative "we meet" arguments and probably give more weight to well-executed reasonability claims/defensive theory arguments than many judges in the LD/CX pool. I have no predispositions for or against any particular paradigm issues - judge instruction on theory is paramount.
Also fine with kritiks. K's should isolate links that are more specific to the affirmative method, mindset, or fiated policy action, rather than being generic topic links. Alternatives should do something. Affs should debate the alt more.
IVIs are not the first layer of the debate just because you have called something an IVI. IVIs need to include an impact and comparative weighing just like any other argument. Otherwise, every argument you make should be labeled as an IVI because it would just come first, and that's obviously silly.
Less familiar with arguments featuring identity-based positions or postmodern philosophy, but I'm not ideologically opposed to them. I would recommend that you identify an external impact that your advocacy solves rather than claiming your argument is "the root cause" of theirs or something nebulous like "violence", because that quickly becomes cyclical and difficult to resolve.
If your strategy relies on one or more hidden tricks, I would strike me. Tricks are any strategies relying on the other team conceding claims without warrants in order to win the debate, especially including claims hidden in the middle of card text or tags without proper oral signposting. I will take great pleasure in demolishing your speaker points for introducing such arguments, and laugh if and when you complain about it. Strategies that rely on silly arguments (i.e., we don't know what words mean so negate, we can't determine right or wrong so negate, plan flaw the US is a land mass, etc.) I am more amenable to, provided that you are clearly "warranting" them in the first speech.

Congress-specific:

Please fully warrant arguments during your speeches. Please clash with other speakers that came before you. You should think of yourself as "working with" your side to advance debate on the item on the floor.
Rehash is bad, argument synthesis is good. If you are restating an argument that came before you, that's bad. If you are adding information to the debate, that's good. The worst part of Congress is the exceptionally lazy and substandard warranting and argument synthesis that happens during most Congressional debate rounds.
I value content more than many judges, but I still care about your delivery, and it can influence your rank.
Congress should debate more bills and have fewer cycles of debate on each bill. This is apparently an unpopular opinion among competitors, but it is a hill I'm willing to die on. People prepared to do more debate are more likely to do well in front of me.
Please don't yell at each other during questioning.
The PO will start as my 5. A PO will improve if I think debate in the chamber is bad, they have clear and consistent procedures for recognizing speakers, questioners, and motions, and if they minimize delays to facilitate the most debate possible. The PO will be harmed if there are many excellent speakers, making it difficult for them to stand out, or their procedures are inconsistent or unclear.
This is less of a paradigm issue, but here's my hot take: Congress would be better if each chamber were 10 students with an adult PO debating one item for no more than 75 minutes each, with the chambers rotating as if it were a speech tournament. Do with this information what you will.

Speech, in general:

I do not have a strong preference on what you're bringing to the table with your piece, and I doubt that you're going to change much because I'm on your panel. That's more than fine. You do you, and I'll evaluate it and try to leave my thoughts and helpful feedback.
I come from a debate background, where truth often goes out the window and I'm evaluating arguments as close to a blank slate as possible. I will likely be evaluating the technical merits of your piece more than other judges you might have (e.g., blocking, precise rhetoric, structure of a body point, etc.) and using those to determine my ranks more than some big picture stuff (e.g., how did it make me feel, do I think your piece is 'important', etc.)
Regardless of your rank, I deeply appreciate the work and thought you put into your pieces. I will generally enjoy pieces that have been carefully put together.
I am more familiar and comfortable judging public address events (Extemp, Oratory, Informative) than Interp. I have no theater or acting background.
I love judging POI. I think it's so cool.

Extemp specifically:

I expect to see you framing the question in your introduction. The most effective speeches synthesize current events into a concise bit of background information that answers the question: "why ask this question in the first place?"
I appreciate technical flourishes in Extemp: truly creative AGDs, clever transitions, and mic drop moments at the end of speeches. In excellent rooms, these will probably make the difference (plus the quality of your introduction and your overall approach to the question).
I need you to give me impacts and bring your analysis back to the language of the question. Impact work is severely under-utilized in Extemp.

Emily Robinson John F. Kennedy High School

Last changed on Sat December 12, 2020 at 3:26 AM CDT

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years on the local and national circuit at Kennedy High School (2015-2019).

include me in the email chain- robineai@uni.edu

tech><truth

While I do find debate to be strategy based, I prefer arguments that follow a logical well thought out narrative.

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh. It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Signpost! At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I prefer teams to not just say "extend Smith 19"- you need to explain the evidence and what that is directly responding to

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I really like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- For first and second summary I would like you to extend responses on your opponent's case in order to extend it to final focus

- within this speech it is important to collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I have no experience in LD or Policy so if you choose to run this type of argument you need to dumb it down for me. Personally, I would prefer a traditional contention over this type of argument.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- I understand rounds can get heated and I like respectful humor and sassiness, but do not be condescending or rude to your opponents

- Have fun!

Hagan Rose Brentwood High School

Timothy M Scheffler James Madison Memorial

Last changed on Sun January 16, 2022 at 8:17 AM CDT

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Aarron Schurevich Millard North HS

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2019 at 7:57 AM CDT

Last updated 4/27/2019

A PF specific tl;dr for 2019 TOC: I haven't judged in a while, so I'm rusty on the flow; 2nd rebuttal MUST address both sides; PF is a speaking event, and your presentation style should be geared toward laypersons; and I HATE evidence paraphrasing to the extent that I will use speaks to punish the practice. Details on all of these items and more are in the full text below.

Important initial note: I haven't judged a ton the past couple of years. I've been spending more and more tournaments in tabrooms and less and less time at those tournaments adjudicating debates. As such, my flow skills are not as sharp as they have been in the past. Even more than usual, I am not the judge for blippy, super intricate, and/or card-dump debates. First and foremost, I don't like those debates, but more importantly, I'm not going to be good at evaluating them right now. If an argument matters, the debater needs to ensure I actually know it matters by spending time on explaining how it functions and why it is critical.

BIO
I am the head coach of the Millard North debate team in Omaha, NE and have been since 2012. For several years prior to joining Millard North, I was the Public Forum assistant coach for Fred Robertson at Millard West.

UNIVERSAL NOTE BEFORE EVENT SPECIFIC NOTES:
I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

PUBLIC FORUM
I have judged PF more often than anything else, and it's the source of the majority of my training and experience.

STRIKE ADVICE
- If you do not intend to address both sides of the flow in the second rebuttal, you should strike me. Every team addresses both sides every weekend on my regional circuit, so I know it is a fair expectation AND that it can be done successfully. If you do not adapt to this expectation, you will be disappointed with the round's results, and I will not be kind with speaks.
- If you are rude and approach debate as a place to just flex and show off how much smarter you are than other people, you should strike me. In the past, I have used my ballot to forcefully discourage bad behavior, unnecessary rudeness, and disrespectful treatment of opponents. I have no problem doing so again.
- If you refuse to slow down and explain arguments as you might if you were speaking to any other non-debate human, you should strike me. Do not forget that I haven't been judging a ton lately, and if you do not take that into account and adapt for me, I will not sweat even for a second when I inevitably miss arguments on my flow.
- If you do not intend to read quoted evidence and instead paraphase your evidence, strike me. Paraphrasing of evidence is a cancer in PF.

GENERAL NOTE
I would be happy to see something unconventional (plan, kritik, etc.). If you want to go off the beaten path, I need you to be able to argumentatively justify your approach (Why is a plan good for PF? Why is your K important, especially in this event?) when you're inevitably pressed. The flip side of this is that I'll be at least receptive to theory arguments against these case strats if your opponents deem it necessary. For instance, if you run a specific plan, I'd listen to a theory argument about disclosure since disclosure has become a norm where plan debate exists otherwise.

I caution, however: by absolutely no means do I intend to indicate that I would like to see a case you're running that you're just running for the lulz. For the love of all that is holy, do not run a joke/meme case in front of me; you will be able to see the dissatisfaction in my immediate reaction and in the resultant mushroom cloud which will rise when I inevitably nuke your speaks.

FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other's. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and none of us in that round want me to have to do that given that judges doing work for themselves is the quickest way to get people all huffy about the decision. I won't intervene unless I'm left with no option but to do so in order to make a decision.

Also, more specifically on framework, if it matters and it's something that swings the debate one way or the other, you need to apply the framework to the argumentation in the debate.

SPEED
Don't. That's not the event's intention, and the speaker points I award will be used to discourage speaking practices I find to be problematic. Beyond all that, I suck at dealing with speed, so even if I wanted to get it all, I wouldn't and I won't be bothered by the fact that I'll only get a percentage of what you say on my flow due to your choices.

EVIDENCE
Please, please, please, please, please... for your sake and for mine, do not paraphrase your evidence. I need to hear the words of your evidentiary sources, not just your reading of what those sources claim. Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I will be discouraging via speaker points (1-2 speaker point reduction in what would have been otherwise awarded when quoted evidence is not read). All I'll need an opponent to do to answer your paraphrased evidence is tell me it's not a quote/that you paraphrased and I'll disregard it as if it were never on my flow at all. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a BARE MINIMUM) and sources (WITH CREDENTIALS OF THE AUTHOR) cited in all evidence. Without those things, I probably won't evaluate your claimed "evidence" as evidence, and you will likely be upset with how things go in the debate.

REBUTTALS
I steadfastly believe it is the second team's duty and obligation to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line work in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

SPEAKER POINTS
If you're organizing your strikes with the goal of winning a speaker award, I'm probably not your favorite judge. My scale is essentially as follows:

30 - Absolute perfection or otherwise deeply impressive (I have had multiple seasons when I was judging every weekend where I gave no 30's.)
29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy (I will probably award between one and three 29's over the course of a tournament.)
28 - Good on pretty much all fronts (28/28.5's are my most frequently awarded points.)
27 - Average (I give 27's frequently.)
26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)

I'm a-ok with post-round questions regarding the decision. If that turns into aggressive post-rounding, I will provide the debater/team with one spoken warning on demeanor before docking no fewer than 5 speaker points if the decorum issues continue.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I used to judge LD fairly frequently, but in recent years, I have judged LD far more infrequently (perhaps an average of about 0-5 rounds a year for the past several years).

SPEED
To be frank, I'm not good with flowing speed, though I have gotten much better since about 2013. I don't want a debater to speak to me like I'm a troglodyte, but I still struggle to some extent when tasked with keeping up with a quick speaker on the flow. I prefer a much more relaxed delivery than the hyper-active speed, but I will do everything I can to follow along and keep up. I will clear you if I'm not able to follow along, but if a debater doesn't adapt to my ability level, I'm not heartbroken over missing an argument or two on the flow. I'm an open book as far as non-verbal feedback goes, so you ought to know what I'm thinking and how I feel in any given moment.

STANDARDS/ARGUMENT STYLE
I prefer a traditional value-criterion centered argumentative style as the rounds are much more difficult to evaluate fairly when I'm not given a clear means of preferring a side. I also prefer more resolutionally founded argumentation, but I won't reject non-topical positions without a reason to do so. While I'm largely inexperienced with many of the more technical aspects of national circuit LD, I am open to virtually anything.

THEORY
If you run a theory argument, you should have a solid reason to make that argument. Abuses claimed need to be well-founded and explained. Blippy theory arguments will do nothing for me. I'm not necessarily outright opposed to theory being run, but the debater in question should know that I will need to have it explained essentially every step of the way. Don't treat me like I'm incapable of understanding a the position, but please present it to me as someone that has not heard the position before.

K DEBATE
I would like to see a well-developed K position, but I expect the K to either be the only thing a debater runs or to be consistent with other positions the debater chooses to pursue. Please provide enough analytics to explain the position. My openness established, I have little experience with the K, so I might need a higher level of explanation than other judges who are open to the K.

GENERAL NOTE
I prefer developed case debate. A 67-off-case-positions style of LD isn't appealing to me. I can (and will) evaluate them if the round dictates so, but a debate wherein I see a litany of blippy arguments opposing a handful of well-developed ones, I'm siding with the well-developed positions the overwhelming majority of the time. One dropped argument does not a victory make if that dropped argument is in itself poorly developed. I'm open to anything that's well explained and well-justified, but it must certainly be both of those things if it's what you plan on going for in the end of the debate. I won't be ideologically opposed to the arguments you decide to run, but I likely won't be as familiar with the jargon and hyper-technical aspects of your arguments as other judges may be.

SPEAKER POINTS
If you're pref'ing judges with the goal of winning a speaker award, I'm probably not your judge. I've never utilized the tenth points scale beyond using half points, so I don't use them. I have no idea what makes a 29.2 different than a 29.4; I understand that when seeking out speaker awards, it's a big difference, but because I can't for the life of me understand a practical difference in those two performances, I'm not one to put the tenth point speaks into play.

My scale is essentially as follows:

30 - Absolute perfection or otherwise deeply impressive (I have had multiple seasons where I gave no 30's.)
29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy (I will probably award between one and three 29's over the course of a tournament.)
28 - Good on pretty much all fronts (28/28.5's are my most frequently awarded points.)
27 - Average (I give 27's frequently.)
26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)

Theory Debaters - 4 or Strike (I'm just not one to see most theory args are important or a reason to vote.)
K Debaters - 2 or 3 (There are judges that are much more experienced with the K that you'd probably pref higher than me.)
Traditional: 1 or 2
Tricks: 4 or Strike (In all likelihood, I'm not your judge. I'll listen to it if it's explained, but the tricks are so frequently blippy and unexplained that I have lots of trouble evaluating that style of debate.)

If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.

Josie Slovut Edina HS

Last changed on Sat February 19, 2022 at 7:44 AM EDT

Pronouns: she/her/hers

I have three years of experience debating Public Forum at Millard North High School, and coached for three debate seasons from 2018-2020. Since then, I have gotten a degree in forestry and am currently working in that field. I have not been involved in the debate world since 2020, so I may not be up-to-date on circuit norms.

Speed: I am not good with speed. Do not go above a fast conversational pace/a speed you would reasonably expect reporters on say, CNN, use to communicate with the public. Talking slightly faster than normal is fine, but if a random member of the public would have trouble following what you are saying I probably will too. All my experience is in PF, with a sprinkling of Congress, so please pace yourself accordingly. I will put something in the chat if your speed is a problem for me. Additionally, make sure that your speed is accessible for your opponents.

Virtual Debate Issues: If you are having problems following a speech because of your own/another debaters' Internet connection or related tech issues, SPEAK UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. If you have these concerns during your opponents' speech, please put them in the chat as soon as they arise. I have no problem stopping mid-round to work around technology issues.

How I vote: I vote off my flow and what is said in the round, but I will accept "nope" as a sufficient answer to arguments that are obviously, wildly false or implausible: (like if someone is arguing, idk, that Turkey is protecting NATO from a zombie apocalypse). If someone provides an argument for a role of the ballot that is different from the usual norms of Public Forum, I will consider it and vote based off how well you defend the ROB, and, if you are successful, which team best meets that role. It's possible to win on framing but lose the round.

2nd speaking Team: I expect you to rebuild your case in rebuttal.

If an argument isn't in Summary and final focus, I will not vote off of it. The sole exception is if everyone drops all the important arguments in summary/final focus and I need to re-examine dropped speeches to decide who wins.

I always disclose and give oral feedback.

Randy Stone Indianola 8 rounds

Addisson Stugart Lincoln East HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 29, 2022 at 6:22 AM CDT

They/Them

please try to sign post clearly. i'll get everything written down, but attn difficulties make it difficult to evaluate a flow/round if there aren't clean flows of arguments.

Competitive Debate Participation: Millard North 2014-2017 (PF), University Nebraska-Lincoln 2017-2021 (NFA-LD, 1 v. 1 policy)

Coaching: Assistant Debate Coach, Lincoln High School 2017-2018. Assistant Debate Coach, Marian High School 2018-2021

Email: addissonstugart@gmail.com (Will I give everyone 30's if we use speechdrop instead though? Idk, let's try it.)

My current view on debate has been the most influenced by the following people: Justin Kirk and Nadia Steck

TL/DR:

Content warnings: If you are running something sensitive, you need to have a trigger warning. This means things such as suicide, human trafficking, domestic violence, etc. NEED to have a disclaimer before you say them. Furthermore, you NEED to have a back-up plan if reading it puts the safety of someone in the room in jeopardy. And, for both of our sakes, please don't use something sensitive solely as a means to win a round. Commodification of trauma isn't something that I will listen to.

I will vote on content warning procedurals.

Tech > Truth (what does that mean?)

I will always disclose first and will always give a detailed rfd. Not doing so is bad for education (@ other judges who don’t disclose or refuse to explain decisions).

Speed is a wonderful thing in all events unless it's used as an exclusionary tactic

You can probably tell if I’m buying an argument based on my facial expressions.

Judge intervention will only ever happen if the safety (physical/mental) of a student in the round is at jeopardy.

Presume/default neg in all circumstances UNLESS the alt/cp does more than the aff. Then presumption flips aff.

Flex prep is a-okay in all events.

Evidence

I will call for evidence after round in 3 circumstances:

1. I have read the evidence beforehand in some context and believe that how you are construing it is wrong and unethical

2. The opposing team has asked me to

3. The round is decided on this evidence

Speaks:

Should be primarily based off of skill of debate, not eloquence of speaking.

While I believe speaks are arbitrary, I will generally determine speaks through this loose model:

28-29: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

27.5-28: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

For public forum debate:

I've judged more LD lately due to a judge shortage in NE, and I do college policy, but I debated PF all throughout high school. Moral is: I'm probably one of the most techy and progressive judges that you can get in PF.

Observations: I will listen to anything. I LOVE strategic observations. I LOVE observations that narrow the topic based on grammar/interpretations of the resolution.

On the flow: Don't drop turns. Extend terminal offense. Ghost extensions of terminal defense from rebuttal--> final focus are the only extensions I allow to not be in summary. Other than that, if you want it weighed in final focus, have it in summary.

Rebuttal: It is preferred, but not required, for the second rebuttal to cover both sides. I used to card dump in my rebuttals, so I understand how it can get you ahead on the flow, though. I'm not strategically against it, but pedagogically I am.

Summaries: This is the MOST important speech in the round. This should set up the framing for the final focus, and should have all of the offense you want to go for in it. All previous opposing offense needs to be addressed in this speech (for example, if team a drops team b's turns in summary, strategic strat is for team b to sit on them in final focus. It's too late for team a to come back on that part of the flow.)

Final focus: The same framing should be given as was given in summary. But overviews or underviews are the best. I flow summaries and final focuses in columns next to each other. The final focus' main job is impact analysis. Explain to me why your impacts o/w because, as an owner of four dogs, if left to my own fruition, I could vote for 10 dog lives over nuclear war.

For Lincoln Douglas/CX Debate:

Inherency: I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY VALID ARGUMENT TO GO FOR. Ya got me, I am a stock issues judge (and competitor).

"status quo acts as a delay counterplan" = *chefs kiss*

Value/criterion: I will typically default util~ especially in muddied v/c debates.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, COLLAPSE V/C DEBATES IF IT DOESN'T MATTER (if I have to see another util vs consequentialism debate ???? I might SCREAM)

Also, please explain how the substance of the ac or nc actually relates to your v/c, or better yet, how it could *also* relate to your opponents.

Theory: After being in the activity for a while I have come to the conclusion that proven abuse is a silly metric to win theory debate. I do not believe that in order to win theory you should have to skew yourself out of your own time.

I am unlikely to vote for RVI's on theory in regards to things like "the theory is just a time suck".

I find “Drop the argument, not the team” to be fairly persuasive for general theory arguments (excluding t).

I probably won't vote for condo bad when there's one conditional advocacy.

Topicality: (I will never vote on "they have to prove abuse") I default competing interpretations on t but will listen to reasonability arguments. I believe effects t/extra t can be independent voters with independent standards. I think a dropped violation will *almost* always win a t debate. But because t is try or die, consider the following:

1. If you win the "we meet", reasonability explanations are easier.

2. T is something the neg has to win, not that the aff has to prove opposite. What does that mean? I am not doing the work for the neg to find the aff untopical. Extend and EXPLAIN your standards. (utilize clash, don't just rely on blocks) Tell me why the neg's definition is better than the aff's. Tell me why things like competitive reciprocity is key to eduaction, etc. I know all of these things but will judge *only* based on your explanations.

3. T is just like any other debate. The interp is the claim. The violation is the warrant, the standards are the internal link to>>> the voters being the impacts. So, just like any other debate, I expect you to win on all parts of the flow *especially because topicality is try or die for the aff*.

5. HOWEVER, I will always prioritize being tech over truth. That means that *even if* I don't agree with one's sides strats, or find that they are bad at performing the t strat (or responding) if the opposite side drops something of importance (a violation, concedes a voter, or even a standard that is sat on as the key internal link) I am probably voting there. Concessions are the easiest way for me to pick a winner on T debates.

Tricks: Take like 15 seconds to crystallize it after you do it to make sure I got it, and if you don't do this, don't be mad at me if I don't catch on.

Kritiks: I am open to all kritiks, but I am not familiar with all of the literature. Don't expect me to know the argument off the top of my head, but expect me to flow it and (hopefully) understand it the way that you communicate it to me. Debate is inherently a communication activity, and k debaters can lose sight of this. If it helps you to understand my experience with k's better, when I compete, I always go for framework.

I say K aff's have a higher burden of proof for solvency/explanations than standard policy affs. But here I am, never having voted against a k aff.

Disclosure: Well first off, everyone should disclose. Debate is for education, not just the wins. But also, don't run the theory.

Da's: disads with specific links are probably for the best. I am all about the net bens to counterplans. I am open to any type of argument here.

Counterplans: "Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans." -Dr. Justin Kirk, the legend.

If you're still reading this, I applaud you. But also, if you can manage to make 3 puns in round, I'll give you a 30. Speaks are arbitrary anyway.

Kenneth Sturgis Lincoln High School

Jenipher Sutherland Norwalk High School

Hui Tang Montgomery Blair

Manda Thomas CAM HS 8 rounds None

Kevin Tullis Lakeville

Kathleen VanTieghem Bettendorf HS

Sunil Wahal BASIS Scottsdale HS

Jessie Wentling Millard North HS

Payton Winterhof Millard North HS

Login to Tabroom:

The Dowling Catholic Paradigm

2019 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges