2021 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello, I am a parent judge in my 1st year of LD judging. My preferences:
1. Please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do not spread. If you speak faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the important parts you want me to flow.
2. Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.
All in all be respectful and have fun while debating.
I competed in Public Forum debate for a number of years at Loyola High School. Personally, I view debate as a game, in which I look at arguments in an offensive/defensive structure. It is up to the debaters to define the rules of the game through framework, observations, etc. However, I also focus highly on real-world and logical impacts for arguments and certainly weigh the policy implications of any contention brought up in round.
In terms of speaker points, I focus on the overall flow of a speech as well as the eye contact, posture, etc. I am fine with speed so long as I can clearly understand what is being said.
I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.
Don't know what the IMF is
Got vaccinated don't feel well
Looking for chill rounds
Debate a better lens for me to judge the round. Example: util, deontology. Maybe debate role of judge and the role of the ballot.
For (a lot) more info:
I'll often gift speaker points based on how much I think a person contributed to the flow.
For email chains/evidence exchange: email@example.com
I am a lay parent judge. I am looking at Contentions, Rebuttals, Extend, Impact, Weighing. Also, I am looking at your links - if you are trying to link to an impact of 7 billion lives lost because whatever this debate is about will lead to global thermonuclear war and the end of humanity, I PROBABLY won't buy it.
What is your impact, and why is it greater than your opponent's impact?
I also love clean rounds. I start to lose focus when a round gets bogged down in technical disputes.
My name is Indranil Chandra and I work in IT. My son goes to Dougherty Valley HS, and I have been judging for 2 years for debate.
Don't be overly aggressive in cross or I'll immediately dock points. I would like all debaters to speak at a slower level, so I can understand the true extent of what everyone is saying. I may interject with the occasional "clear" if I feel like I'm not understanding what you're saying.
I may take notes on what I think is important in the round. Please make voting easy for me, and do some serious impact calc. in final focus. I like to see the real world effects of these topics, and I'm going to vote for the side that has impacts that are clear and outweigh their opponents.
The following is a rating system that says how much certain aspects of the debate will have a say in my final vote:
Clothing/ Appearance: 1 : Literally doesn't matter, express yourself however you want
Evidence: 3 : Specific cards may not have a say in the final vote, but strong evidence will win me over. However, don't just cite the card as a refutation, please briefly go over the card and what it entails
Impacts: 4 : As I said before, I like good impact calc.
Cross Ex: 2 : Doesn't affect my judging decision. Keep it clean, be courteous and you'll be fine.
Debate Skills vs. Arguments: 4 : I will vote more off impacts rather than speaking style.
Remember to keep the debate a safe environment, but most of all have fun :)
Background: I debated PF in high school for four years and have a decent amount of judging experience.
Contact: Let me know if you have any questions before round :) Contact through firstname.lastname@example.org or find me on Facebook. UVA'24
I am not evaluating ANY progressive argumentation (theory, k's, etc). PLEASE DO NOT READ PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS AND THEN CLAIM THEY ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE LATER IN ROUND. I don't know how to, and I don't want to. If you read it, I will drop you.
Don't steal prep, speaks drop fast.
Roadmaps; I don't care if you give one or not. You don't need to ask me for permission.
Signpost; if you are all over the flow, it is likely I will miss your arguments. If I can't flow it, it probably won't factor into my decision.
Weigh. That's it. This is the key to winning most close rounds; do it.
Extend. If you don't extend, its dropped. Don't bring dropped arguments back up, I will ignore it. Also, warrant those extensions in summary and final focus. If you just say "extend this", that's not extending.
Preferences: 2nd rebuttal should frontline or it's dropped. 1st summary still needs to extend dropped arguments. Link/impact turns need the full argument extended if your opponent goes for another.
Cross: Nothing in cross will be evaluated unless you explicitly bring it up in a subsequent speech.
Speaks: Average 28 (within division), generally 29.5 max but 30 if there's nothing to improve.
Preferences: I did circuit pf, I cannot handle speed super well (I can kinda handle it), I cannot evaluate progressive arguments very well, I can flow, prefs: larp - 1, literally everything else - strike.
I am a lay judge. Please do not assume I know any debate jargon. Please explain all abbreviations the first time you use them. Please be on time for your tournament.
Mariel Cruz - Updated 10/2/2018
Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School
I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater in college. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.
Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.
Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.
Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.
K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.
Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc)
Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.
Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.
General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.
Speak at a pace that people can understand. In order to cover too many thing in your time limit don't speak so fast that i cannot understand anything .
Be authoritative in what you say. if you are not convinced what you are saying, i am not convinced either.
Enjoy speech and debate!!!!
I judge for Del Norte high school in San Diego, California. I am a flay judge according to my students.
It is my first time judging on this topic!
Pronouns: She/Her | Oakton High School 2020 | NYU Stern 2024 | Debated Policy 4 years & Public Forum 3 years
- I consider myself a flow judge and score speaker points starting from 28 and going up or down from there
- Please sign post!
- Fine with speed as long as it is clear but I recommend slowing down online and much prefer quality>quantity
- You do not need to extend defense in summary unless it's frontlined in rebuttal (sticky defense)
- Be civil in cross, I'll intervene if I think it has gone too far.
- I do not flow cross fire, if you want something from cross say it in speech
- No new arguments in final focus
- Calling Cards: I'm fine with it and if gets to be an important issue in the round tell me to call for it in a speech, please have evidence ready to send
- Theory/progressive: I'll vote on it if relevant but I have a low threshold for responses
- Weighing: Start early in second rebuttal, continue throughout the debate, and comparative weighing
- Please collapse!!!
- Add me on email chain: email@example.com
- In debate I typically ran a policy or soft left aff. I know some K affs relatively well, but you need to be really clear since it has been a while.
- Performance: Fine with it! Just be clear!
- I personally ran K's (Cap, Neolib, Setcol, Ableism, Fem, Queer Pessimism), Politics, DA, and sometimes theory
- If you want to run a K (not the ones above) I'll need a clear overview/explanation on it
- Politics: I'll vote on it, but make sure you're winning the link, I find that the faultiest in most politics debates
- DA (general): Chill with it
- CP: Fine with it, but the net benefit should be really clear
- Theory: I know most of the common theory arguments (T, Plan Flaw, Disclosure), if it's not one of those just make sure to clarify your impacts.
In Round Details
- Keep track of your own prep. I'll time speeches, but you are responsible of keeping track of your time
- Don't be rude - I will lower your speaker points
I vote on actual arguments but I'll take the flow into account, as well as how you interact with your competitors before, after, and during the round.
Theory: I don't prefer theory arguments but I'll vote on them if they're valid and well executed. Don't run T just because you can, and keep kritiks clear and concise. Debating definitions are fine, but don't nitpick. I'll interpret that as you wasting time because your case is weak. Also, try and limit the canned cases.
Spreading: Eloquence over speed. Quality over quantity. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.
Organization: Please sign post! Clear framework is big for me. Remember, I take the flow into account. If I can't clearly flow your arguments, it makes my life (and yours) more difficult.
Communication: I will only flow what is being said by the person who is supposed to be speaking. No puppeteering, but notes, ect are fine.
Please contact me any time, including before or after our round, with any questions or comments: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Above all else: Treat the round as an educational experience, and your fellow participants as you would like to be treated. This means being reasonably kind in general, but also ethical within the debate. I may intervene, even when not asked to by the opposing team, if a competitor:
○ fabricates evidence, including disingenuous paraphrasing, or
○ employs hateful language, or
○ is disrespectful vis-à-vis trigger warnings for unexpected arguments (either neglecting to give one or, more rare, asks that a potentially-triggering argument is avoided as an act of strategy rather than legitimate self-care).
○ PF and LD in high school (2011–2014), both events on the national as well as local circuits
○ Coached PF at the Champion Briefs Institute (now part of ISD)
○ Now an Assistant PF Coach at The Harker School.
The upshot: I have been in a lot of debate rounds, so I am comfortable with debate-specific jargon and can flow at most speeds (I will call "clear" if needed). Please know, though, that clarity can be a factor in speaker points.
Sign-posting is especially appreciated, as I keep a detailed flow and base my decision on it.
Winning My Ballot
My preference is to do as little work as possible, so tell me what to do: clear weighing of well-linked impacts within a well-established framework will go a long way. Try to anticipate the places in the debate where I have to make a non-obvious decision; if you give me reasonable instructions on how to make that decision, and the other team does not, you are ahead. I am open to almost anything that is sufficiently justified within the round, though the farther you stray from the resolution, the more you are inviting me as a judge to insert my own subjective views on reasonableness.
Things I wish I saw more of in PF:
○ Contextualize your impacts against the alternative(s). If you have a link to a small percentage decrease in the chance of, say, a famine, your impact is not that voting for you saves 100% of the death toll of said famine.
○ Be selective. For example, it's often not a great use of time to read turns and mitigation on the same argument. If the turn is strong, mitigation only hurts you, and if it's weak, why read it?
○ Be comparative. If you read a card that says something is true, and your opponent reads a card that says it is false, you need to give me reasons to prefer your argument to theirs. Do not just repeat your argument and insist that it is true without engaging in the clash.
Let's have fun!
Background: I was an LD debater in high school, and I now coach PF.
Pet Peeves: Please don't ask for an "off-time roadmap", either do it or don't. I would prefer you just say what side you are starting on and start the round than a winded explanation.
Time is very precious, it should not take 10 minutes between each speech to transfer evidence in a google doc and get your timer ready - just try to be punctual.
PF Specific: No sticky defense. That means everything you want to be extended or carried through a speech should be explicitly mentioned. Otherwise, I will not extend it.
I am a tabula rasa judge. This means I will buy any argument as long as you do a good job of convincing me. I love watching how debaters can utilize the resolution to their advantage and create a truly nuanced argument they can call their own. Watching stock cases becomes extremely boring after a while.
Theory: If you can run it well, do it when applicable. You need to tell me why theory is a voting issue, otherwise, there is no reason to run it. I do not mind you reading while speaking, but if your theory is just a pre-cut block of text that you spread and don't explain, I'm probably not going to flow it. I also would prefer you to drop the case if you are going for theory. Having a theory spike can be abusive on the grounds of time skew. It also just muddles the debate.
Kritik: I think the critical debate is very valuable. I will accept aff and neg K's.
Speed: I can handle up to about 250 wpm, but I really don't enjoy it being that fast. My flow gets messy and so unless you plan on giving me a copy of your case, you might want to slow it down a bit. Also, I will only allow speaking as fast as both debaters are comfortable. If your opponent cannot flow your arguments, there is no clash, and that is no fun. Also, I would just prefer a more conversational pace as learning outcomes are much greater when you talk at a speed normal for conversation.
Flowing: PLEASE SIGN POST. When you want me to extend an argument, you need to tell me. Not just that you want it extended, but why. I will only cross apply arguments if you are very organized, and tell me specifically why you are cross applying. It is pretty rare that I do this, so I would just recommend taking the extra step to tell me why your point interacts with multiple parts of their case.
If you have ANY further questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. I also don't mind giving critiques after the round finishes. Good luck and have fun!
Background: Lay judge, in that I never debated. I do flow and generally try to go by that when thinking about the round ( except crossfire).
I can't flow very fast speech, but if you're just slightly above conversational pace we should be fine. I will yell clear if I literally can't understand you, but if you go somewhere between the two limits above recognize that I'll just be doing my best and may miss things.
Please let me know why my vote should be clear and so I don't have to think too hard.
I am the timekeeper. You can time yourself but I will also time you, and my timer matters more. I run enough tournaments to appreciate them running on time, I will be ... assertive about use of time in the debate. This includes prep time. I do enjoy judging - I just also know that I should spend as little time as possible doing it.
Rounds starting EARLY IS GOOD. You should be preparing to head to your room the moment you get the pairing and complete any coin flips - definitely by the time the clock hits 15 minutes before the start time. Because I like judging, I want to get to it as soon as possible! Let's say... I develop the best opinions of teams that are prompt to their rounds.
If finding evidence takes you longer than thirty seconds or so, it starts to come out of your prep (and ethos).
I fully appreciate that it's strategic to call for evidence that actually sounds not true. But if it sounds like you're just doing it for everything under the sun, I will notice. If card-calling becomes a huge time-suck and advances the debate very little - it will make me think you're just using it to harry the other team or steal prep time and I will make that my business (I have a very broad perspective on what goes into speaker points).
Theory > substance because debate practices and norms are important (unless argued otherwise in round). That doesn't mean reading it is an automatic ballot, it just means I'll listen closely.
Kritikal education > hypothetical implementation of policy options (unless argued otherwise in round)
Think of your last speech as my RFD - if you can (fairly/truthfully and succinctly) tell me what to write, it just might come true.
I'm a college student who did Public Forum throughout high school. I have experience with debates at all levels ranging from extremely lay to Nationals level competition.
The biggest things I look for are clash between cases and weighing arguments within that. It's your job to actively interact with the opposing teams arguments and then be able to tell me why your side is better. If you don't weigh in round, then I'll have to do it at the end and it may not be favorable to you. However, if you give me your own framework and/or weighing mechanism to evaluate the round, I will judge through that lens.
I am a lay judge who has started judging this year. I will do my best to understand the arguments and the logical reasoning and judge on that basis.
(not available to judge 1/25)
My preferences are pretty standard. I like taking notes on the arguments, evidence, impacts etc while you are speaking. I don't like new ideas introduced later in the debate. Weigh as much as possible to differentiate your narrative from your opponents, starting from the summary.
I'll weigh everything at the end of all the rounds. Public forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating. Be respectful during crossfire, no time wasting tactics. I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, rebuttal, arguments, and impacts. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.
I am a judge in PF for Dougherty Valley High School.
- Please do not speak fast, and try to be as clear as possible when you speak.
- You should be telling me how I should be weighing the round.
- Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.
I am a parent lay judge and have just started this year. Please speak slowly and clearly. I will do my best to understand the logical reasoning and arguments, but please do not assume that I know any technical jargon or abbreviations. Most importantly, have fun and good luck!
Please speak clearly and do not go too fast. I am a parent judge, but I do understand content well as long as it is explained well in all of your speeches.
Please specify your contentions and impacts very clearly in your constructives and make sure to explain the entire argument that you are going for in summary/final focus.
Please do not go for all of your arguments in later speeches. Also, do not make claims without giving a reason as to why it may be true.
Do not make any responses to your opponents’ case if it is not explained properly.
Do not misconstrue your evidence or your speaker points will be deducted.
Have a good round!
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
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.
I do not have much experience with judging.
I am a lay judge and I will be considering the following points:
- Please speak slow, clear, and loud.
- Please articulate your ideas well and in an orderly fashion.
- Do not be rude or arrogant during cross.
- Please do not be overly repetitive and bring up the same point several times to fill time.
- Logic is very important.
I am a parent judge. Speak up clearly and avoid using technical jargon.
I have judged at a few tournaments before and am a parent judge. My speaking preferences are that you speak understandably and clearly. I would appreciate you guiding me through the round as to which points you are pushing in your arguments. I am open to letting you guys run the round completely.
Most importantly, please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!
* Please speak slowly and clearly.
* I value research skills, significant evidence & comparison.
* I work hard during the debate and review my notes & logs carefully before giving a result.
I prefer clear speaking over excessive speed.
Please show respect towards your opponent and the judges.
I will judge in favor of the team who presents the most relevant data and who can successfully challenge all of their opponents’ arguments.
I debated public forum in high school (class of 2011) and some APDA parliamentary debate in college. I haven't been around debate for ~6 years. I know debate evolves over time, so just keep in mind that I may be relatively 'old school.'
I believe debate should be accessible to everyone, so I generally do not value highly technical forms of debate. This means I'm more persuaded by logical and persuasive points over technical debate tactics. I'll accept arguments without evidence if you argue them well, I do not like meta debate (but I'll listen to it if done well), and I generally will accept points regardless of where they happen in a round (within reason).
Most importantly: give me a weighing mechanism. Debates generally come down to weighing the impacts of things that are hard to compare (i.e. 1 human life vs 1% of GDP). Make sure I understand how to weigh those two things, otherwise I have to insert myself into that calculus more than I'd like (and probably more than you'd like).
My degree is in international studies and I work in technology so I understand those topics quite well.
Hello debaters! I will be judging your rounds based on a team's ability to derive impacts from their arguments, followed by effective weighing of those impacts into the framework (if applicable). Speaking with some speed is ok, as I understand that there are many tasks to accomplish within a short 5 minute speech, however, I would prefer that you don't spread. While I will not be making a decision on this, I think it is important for both teams to be courteous and polite towards each other throughout the round. Failure to do so will result in a lower speaker score. I will almost always verbally disclose so long as the tournament's rules allow me to. Good luck and have fun!
I competed in Public Forum all throughout high school and am currently in the mock trial team at UCLA. I understand that each judge is very different from the next so I am not too critical when it comes to the format of the debators. I would like to hear off time road maps before each speech so that I understand where you are going.
I will be flowing throughout the round, mainly so that I can remember everything that is said throughout the round and the points being made.
When it come to cross examination, I do find it important to be prepared and answer ready. Cross is a huge opportunity for teams to catch there opponents off guard and really show strategy in round. I’m telling now that examination is one of my favorite parts of Public Forum.
Besides this just speak clear and be confident in anything you say.
Please don’t spread, it’s not fun for your opponents or the judge.
Hi, nice to meet you, I'm Mira.
In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.
I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!
If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:
General/Important Things on How I Judge:
-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.
-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.
-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them
-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.
-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.
-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.
-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.
Background on Me:
-I have debated for five years.
-I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).
-Currently debating NPDA+BP at UCLA.
-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible(tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.
-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.
-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.
-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.
-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)
-It should make sense and be specific to the round.
-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)
-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)
Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.
-Do not make assumptions on people's identities and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful
-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't
get you a win
-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.
-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.
-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.
-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.
-I'm generally familiar with (varying degrees of knowledge, but I understand the basic premises and functions of): Marx, Biopower/Foucault, Anti-Neoliberalism, Crip and Disability theory, Neoliberalism, Orientalism, Settler-Colonialism
Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.
25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).
26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.
27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.
28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.
28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.
29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.
30: You were godly.
This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as and if I judge more.
In high school, I debated four years in Public Forum in high school at Green Valley (2013-2017), and I have extensive experience and preference for national circuit PF.
In college, I have experience on the NPDA/NPTE parli circuit as well as the NFA LD circuit. As a college debater, I ran mostly kritikal positions, but due to my background in PF I’m pretty comfortable with any style of argumentation. I believe it is my role as a critic to adapt to the debaters in the room, and I encourage debaters I judge to read any arguments they enjoy and debate how they want to debate
***For online debate, please add me to the email chain. My email is email@example.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.
- Fine with most DAs. If reading any politics DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic Link evidence.
- Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the direction of your DA.
- For affirmative teams, I think a combination of terminal defense and offensive arguments is best when answering DAs and I would have a relatively high threshold to vote only on terminal defense
- I’m fine with Kritikal affirmatives, however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer Affs that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise. I also am generally persuaded by the argument that the affirmative should not get a permutation in a methods debate, but am open to arguments otherwise.
- I’m fine with most counter plans although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate
- I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.
- I default to perms are test of competition not advocacies
- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and default to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.
- I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.
- I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.
- I take a tabula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.
-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.
-Please extend author last name and year in the back half of the round. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison
- In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading
- Please collapse
- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus
- Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clear if I can't flow what you are saying
- Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round
Theory and Procedurals
- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.
- I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.
- I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.
- While I am sympathetic to debaters who do not know how to respond to theory arguments in public forum, I encourage debaters to seek online resources, or reach out to myself or others at tournaments for a further discussion as to how to handle these arguments.
-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note, I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round
I value analysis in a debate with supporting facts. It is also important how you deliver the facts. A good debate is a combination of facts, arguments and delivery. I also equally discourage made-up facts. You need to show the credible sources for your facts.
This is my 3rd year as a parent debate judge.
I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.
I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line by line, some humor if you're actually funny) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too.
Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.sesss Dddt
School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School
Event Type: Congress
Hi everyone! This is my first year judging so I'm still relatively new to the concept. The main things I look for are to establish an active presence in the round, speeches that hold my attention but also engaging with other speakers, and strong impacts to understand why your argument is relevant. In other words, you should be able to effectively convince me why you're right. Since I won't be taking any notes, but rather listening in on the debate, it's on you to distinguish yourself so that I can remember you as I submit my rankings afterward. Good luck!
I debated PF for 4 years on the national circuit. While I am a "flow judge" and can handle speed, I would discourage you from spreading if it sacrifices your clarity.
Couple things to consider when having me as a judge:
1. All arguments that you want me to evaluate in the round should be in summary and final focus, although I'm okay with first speaking teams extending defense from rebuttal to FF.
2. Collapsing is crucial. Pick and choose which arguments you want to go for; PLEASE do not go for everything in your case. The ability to collapse on 1 or 2 arguments will automatically boost your speaks for me.
3. This goes hand in hand with collapsing: please weigh your arguments. If you don't, I'll unfortunately be forced to do it myself which may or may not work out the way you would like.
Overall the key to winning my ballot is making the round as EASY AS POSSIBLE for me to evaluate. As the judge I want to do as little thinking as possible, so if you want to explain your arguments to me like I'm 5 years old, I'm game. The best way you can do this for me is with a clear and consistent narrative presented throughout the round. I will always weigh a long, well warranted, analytical response more heavily than a card dump. More often than not, if you just logically make more sense than your opponents, you will win my ballot.
-I hate wasted time in rounds where teams take 10+ minutes outside of their prep time trading evidence.
-If both teams are chill with it we can skip grand crossfire.
-I will never call for cards. If you have an issue with a card, bring it up in your speech.
-I don't vote for anything said in crossfire, if its important, bring it up in your speech.
El Camino Real Charter High School
English Department Chair
Speech and Debate Coach
I currently teach Honors British Literature and have taught almost every English course possible at the high school level, including AP Language. I have over 7 years experience teaching English at El Camino Real.
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Although speech delivery is very important for students, learning how to support their argument with facts and passion is just as important, if not more important. With the time constraints imposed on students they often speak very quickly so it is important to emphasize their supporting information very clearly and concisely. What generally helps me is if the student begins with the big picture so I can tell where they are heading, and following that up with line by line details, allowing some time for me to absorb the information and take notes. They should also be prepared for their opposition by stating any known contradictions and addressing them head on. Their final focus should repeat their strongest arguments and why I should vote for their side. Also, remember to repeat these strongest arguments whenever they speak again.
I find that sometimes students try to bring in too many arguments. Then they spend too much time defending these lesser arguments and lose focus on the big picture. Remember, the opposition will try to undermine your support so the fewer you have the easier it will be to stay focused on the facts you have to support your argument.
As far as style, first and foremost, be yourself. Be enthusiastic about your topic. Be confident in your argument, don't let the opposition distract you by hammering on one of your arguments, restate your facts and then reinforce your other arguments. If the other team or person does something you feel is against the rules, don't argue with them during your time. Wait for Cross and then mention it but don't let yourself be drawn into an argument at that time. State your concern and let the judge take it into consideration. I have seen a lot of time wasted as students argue the point during the speech process. Also, a few moments of silence is OK. You don't have to fill the time with "ummm" or something similar. You are allowed to take a moment to think out your answer or your next argument.
Finally, remember, you don't have to prove the opposition is wrong, only that your argument will lead to the best outcome. This should be the focus throughout. Yes, it is a good idea to point out flaws in their argument, but it is more important to reiterate your argument and why your point is the best outcome for the issue at hand.
I am a parent judge and have volunteered for both speech and debate competitions. Please speak clearly, cover all your arguments, and do not go too fast. Keep your cards ready and promptly present them when asked. I will not be timing and I let the teams be responsible so that I can focus on the rounds. For your final focus, the summary will be very important for scores and my decision. Good luck and have a great round!!!
PF Paradigm 2021-22 Season:
eDebate - Year of the Delta Variant
I consider myself tech>truth but I have been approaching a closer equilibrium between the two lately due to the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, after two years of COVID debate I especially feel not only the soul of debate but the fun of debate is waning. I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. The complexity and dynamic nature of debate can be so rewarding and equally thrilling. But if you pair that with inflexibility, curtness, or even acrimony the debate devolves into a Pyrrhic victory at best for you and a painful experience for us all. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.
2022 Winter Stats Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 539 rounds since 2014 with a 54% Pro and 46% Con balance. Not bad. Slight Aff bias it seems.
FYI Emory's rules on prep and evidence exchange: 4 minutes of prep (RR is still 3) and"When requested, teams have one minute to produce evidence. If requests for multiple pieces of evidence are made, the exchange should occur in a comparable time frame. At the end of the minute, if the team cannot produce the evidence, preparation time for that team will then be used to locate that evidence. The team may choose to have the evidence dropped from the round if they choose."
First, the detailed implementation of the resolution isn't obvious. Whilst we can't offer plans in PF we can speculate on what is the most likely form of implementation. Legalization can take many forms and can be based on existing proposals in congress, based on state models, or even models abroad. If your argument is contingent upon a facet of legalization that is not reasonably inherent to the process please provide evidence and warranting to why this would be a likely feature. I.E. lobbying watering down regulations, substance abuse programs being mandated as a portion of tax revenue, therapeutic legalization for certain drugs only. These are all features that require additional support in my opinion and are not inherent to a generic legalization process. Just provide the evidence or warranting to why they would be likely. Also on the reverse please don't quip that legalization wouldn't look like that. Why? You need competing evidence or warranting to why that feature wouldn't be included.
Second, for the classic debate about price, use, and abuse. Both sides are trying to access increasing or decreasing trends as a result of the resolution. Do not. I repeat do not just throw back and forth case studies of prices going up or down. Use going up or down. Abuse going up or down. Compare them! Is one case study better than another? Do you have a meta study? Do you have a study that is most recent or longitudinal? I am especially not sympathetic to the lazy argument that "your evidence is just from a state or country that decriminalized so it's irrelevant to this debate. Legalization and decriminalization is different." Of course it is but legalization is the erasure of all penalties including criminal and civil within the regulations the governments set up. Explain to me why the distinction matters in this evidence debate and do not just say they are different. What if the evidence debate is close? What warranting makes more sense? This also gets to net or gross weighing of impacts. Y'all.... it can be simultaneously true that abuse, use, and prices go up and down but at different times or have total net differences. Please be clear on when these trends happen, why that matters in the short and long term, and more importantly what the net effects are.
Third, uncarded or unwarranted claims. Due to the rhetoric around this topic in the real world I have found judging rounds to be plagued with more asserted claims than with other topics. You can't just say LSD is bad. You can't just say weed is good. Provide evidence and warranting for claims just like you would other topics. There are a bunch of built in biases we have on topics but I think you are assuming based on decades of bad media and policy exposure there are claims that need no support on this topic. Maybe but it's rare. "We turned their LSD good argument because it's bad!" Ok this debate can be fruitful. Compare the studies? Are there meaningful differences in who was studied? When? Is there decent evidence on both sides? Engage the warranting. For example, you could explain to me biochemically what is going on in a brain that does heroin and why that creates a neurological and biochemical dependency cycle etc. Give me something to compare.
- What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
- Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
- Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
- I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. I used to have an essay about my doubts on three major theory arguments but moved it to the bottom of you want to read why. TL;DR: I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. I am more skeptical of paraphrasing theory than disclosure theory. Lastly, if you look back at the last 31 rounds or so I've judged with theory as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced theory in the round 6 of 31 rounds. Meaning I vote for theory 19% of the time when it's the voter. Take that as you will. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can.
- What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
- Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
- DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
- I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
- Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
- If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
- My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
- My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or evidence" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
- Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic]
- To see my discussions and extended preferences please check out r/debate on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/GabeRusk/submitted/
Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union
Coaching Experience: 11 years of coaching, instructor at 14 debate camps, debate camp director, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, Director of Debate at Fairmont 2018-Current, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, Capitol 2016-2018, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.
Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Law & Religion - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment - Majored in Religion and Philosophy at DU '14. Other research areas of familiarity include Buddhism, comparative religion, sociology of religion, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & SCOTUS history.
Ramblings on Theory
Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. That I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.
- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen or engage this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the "harm" principle than benefited good faith champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.
Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what was considered is permitted versus your polar opposite in values. Now imagine they via structural means could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" is stricken from lesson plans all together.
I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-oped and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.
All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.
- I am more skeptical of paraphrasing theory than disclosure theory. On the former I am sympathetic and have seen myself countless times how "full text" cases are equally capable of being miscut and clipped. Theoretically there is a possible debate on paraphrasing facilitating abuse easier and there could be a good trade off theory debate had but rarely do I see that done well. On the latter, I am more open to a disclosure theory debate but still remain more resistant than most flow judges to engaging this argument. I will be especially incredulous of your theory argument if I discover your application of theory is principally inconsistent. For example, you are running disclosure or paraphrasing theory against one team for violating but not another team who violated (assuming both judges would have equally been receptive.) There may be other extenuating circumstances that explain the discrepancy in application but they need to be addressed.
I am getting better on disclosure theory but let me explain some of my concerns based on anecdotal experiences being in PF for 15 years. For one I have probably judged more rounds than you if your a competitor. 545 or so in January 2022 at least on tabroom. Not a flex but just a survey of what's going on in the circuit. There were actual tournaments last year where more than half of the rounds had cases or arguments exclusively from one or two teams. That's not bad on face. The problem was the vast majority of the debaters using them didn't even understand the cards in a nuanced way to even explain them. I am sorry but if you are one of the top teams in the country a novice or team who wants better arguments are likely to defer to you in trust. The issue was that some of the cards were miscut or extremely powertagged. I thought the wiki was supposed to solve power tagging? I saw so few indicts. For example, there was in infamous card from a January topic last year where it was from the copy of the bottom of a corporate blog with no date, warrant, author but I saw it in probably 66% of rounds on the topic. No one interrogated the source that well except for maybe two rounds and the stamp of approval from being on a prominent wiki let it just proliferate more. The wiki didn't solve this problem at all. I think we are getting better I hope. I don't think any serious disclosure team denies this could be a problem but that as a whole putting more evidence on the wiki means more fairness and education for all. I wish someone could start doing analysis on how many more teams are on the wiki, number of cards, etc. I just would like to look at data because I think the competing warrants are strong and need something outside of my experiences to validate said warranting.
I am most suspicious of paraphrase theory because virtually every single round I judge with full text I would question if even the full text is cut appropriately. You selecting words while omitting others means you are actively deciding which ones not to read. Just because you are using some of the exact words in an excerpt to me is barely different than paraphrasing. I think it means its relatively harder to abuse but not by much. If anything I think full text cards are called for less and overtime have become "power cut."
Lack in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.
Hi, I’m Veronica. I was a part of Bear Creek Highschool in Debate and Speech events for 3 years. I currently go to Napa Valley College and in the past assisted my speech professor Ana Petero with college speech and debate.
I have very little patience for over-complex, hard to understand, pseudo-intellectual arguments that are designed to confuse your opponents. If I can't understand your arguments, I probably won't give a lot of weight.
I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.
I will dock speaker points for completely incomprehensible spreading.
Don't be offensive towards your opponents.
Lastly, have fun and be competitive!
Update for Peninsula 2021: I am sick and hence will have my camera off. I would especially appreciate it if you kept your own time and made me speak as less as possible. I would also appreciate if you send your case to firstname.lastname@example.org with your team code on the subject line so I can follow better. Apologies for the inconvenience, have fun debating!
Hey y'all. (If you see a lot of debate jargon here, blame it on my son).
I am a parent judge but that doesn't mean I'm stupid. So disclaimer if you're gonna try and go full "lay" or think I'm going to let an argument past me, you're wrong. However, don't start running K's, Theory Shells or any other of that progressive stuff because if you are reading this you very well know this is a traditional local tournament.
SPEAKING- Be clear, concise. Don't be mean. That's the main gist. If you can't speak in the best way or you have a speaking impairment, don't worry! All I should see is you trying.
30- You spoke really well. You demonstrated a well-versed understanding of the topics. You won all the arguments, and it seems as if the world relies on this ballot. You made me smile and gave me new insight.
29- You were excellent. Only very minor flaws, maybe in just not extending an impact or not explaining values that well. Other than that, you were pretty solid.
28- I see a lot of potential. You may lack in certain areas but you put up a, if not good, then reasonable fight.
27- You had a reasonable case. You couldn't defend your case, perhaps only one or two arguments. No solid offense but tried.
26- You need to go over the resolution again, understand it well. Learn to give voter issue, impacts, explain values.
**BELOW a 26**- If you were mean, super mean, violated rules like had a evidence violation or were 'super duper really you should learn how to behave' mean.
VALUES- I really really think values are really important. It gives me a weighing mechanism to judge the round and makes things easier. I expect you to tie back your arguments to your value structures. I generally prefer if you agree on a value premise but if you oppose your opponent's value structure, be clear. Don't use complicated theories of ethics and expect me to nod my head. Keep it clear, simple and explain your stuff.
WELL ORGANIZED ARGUMENTS- I don't want you to be going everywhere making a round hell for me. Be organized, be clear. Signpost. Refer to your card names, tell me where your argument is (ie Contention 1, Sub Point C). I also like Off Time Road Maps.These skills not only help me in round but also will help you as a debater. Also, do NOT drop arguments. I may be a parent but I judge off of arguments.
REBUTTALS- I honestly think rebuttals are very, rather the most important. If you come up with one on spot, that you warrant really well, without any evidence, I will really like that. That being said, if you use evidence or a card, then I still won't mind. Just warrant it out and explain it to me. Just reading evidence is useless.
What I don't like
- You either being super tech or super lay. Talk like I'm a lay judge, argue like a tech one. But not too tech, it will only go against you.
-Being mean. You know the reasons. I will deliberately judge screw you if you are mean or sarcastic. We all know how oof being judge screwed is.
-Super advanced stuff. Maybe you even explain it, I will still not understand it. But at the end of the day, I hardly know what a K or theory or plan is. (This is my son assuring me that I don't know this stuff).
-Giving impacts without reasons. I don't want to hear "Climate Change is bad." Tell me how it is bad and connect your value premise's to it.
In the end, I appreciate you, your time and your skills as a debater. I may sound super picky in this paradigm but my son says it helps debaters. All this is for you to learn.
Good luck debating!
I am looking for clear arguments backed by data. I pay close attention to cross-fires as they are a good place to show your understanding of the opponents point of view and your ability to counter them. Lastly i want my teams to be spirited yet respectful.
My preference is that the speakers should have a moderate pace in their speeches so that the judge could fully understand them and specifically when they are speaking about their contentions.
Be polite and respectful through the debate.
I request that both the parties could time each other while speaking and warn/alert if they are exceeding the given time limit
I normally judge on the way the person speaks, how he supports his/her assertions with facts. It does not matter whether i agree with their opinion or not. I look for how clear they speak, convey their points clearly and if they are courteous.
I am an experienced lay judge. I don’t like fast talking and value quality of arguments over quantity. Make sure your arguments are well developed. If I don't understand them, it makes it difficult to vote on them. Same goes for refutations. Please be polite and respectful to your opponents and time yourselves, if possible.
I am a real estate agent. I am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged public forum debate for 2 years, mostly in the novice and JV divisions.
I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasive ability, and how easy your arguments are to understand. I’d prefer if you speak at a normal speed, or only slightly fast. Be polite and respectful to me, your opponents, and your partner.
I will only vote on arguments that are extended throughout the debate, and that make sense to me. When making any point you would like me to vote on, clearly explain what it is and why it matters.
I will not be taking many notes during the round, so please point out any concessions, drops, etc. that the opponents make. Keep the debate jargon to a minimum.
How much I weigh the following (1 - not at all, 10 - heavily):
Clothing/Appearance: 2/10 I do not judge based on appearance but put some effort into looking professional.
Use of Evidence: 9/10 I will not be calling for cards but make sure your evidence states what you are claiming. When extending cards, explain the warrants instead of just giving the tags.
Real world Impacts: 10/10 Clearly explain why your impact matters more than your opponents, and do the weighing for me.
Cross Examination: 4/10 I will not pay much attention during cross, so if there are any important concessions made, point them out in your next speech.
Tech over truth: 6/10 I will care more about the manner in which the argument is presented, but I will not vote on anything that is blatantly untrue. It is your job to convince me why your opponents’ arguments are invalid.
Additionally, don’t run theory, as I do not have experience with it, and cannot evaluate what I don’t understand.
Hi, my name is Jacob Tamkin, I am a sophomore at USC and have been debating and judging public forum for 4+ years. Please talk slow and be respectful to one another. Make sure to reiterate and carry your points through to the end. Good luck !
TLDR on my paradigm (PF):
I am about 75% tech 25% truth. I intervene if it gets messy.
I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis if no other framework is read and neg if there is no offense on the flow.
I am an average judge. Was never anything amazing on the circuit, but I try my best not to screw. Postrounding is ok as long as it isn't contiuing the debate.
I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky. Extensions required 1SS onward.
I am old when it comes to debate. I flow on paper and not my laptop. If you go to fast and I cannot keep up, it's on you. I usually am able to keep up with PF speed or slower.
Spread and I will drop you.
If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged prefiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post fiat judging abilities. If your opponents have committed a crime against humanity and you think I should drop them for it, make it heard and I'll decide if it's dropworthy.
Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.
POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.
I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.
Same thing with the theory and K stuff in the TLDR, although I am versed in topicality shells. I am more receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow down on them and dumb them down a bit.
I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.
I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.
I am honestly clueless. I will suck at evaluating prefiat. I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge.
I debated my junior and senior year of highschool. Tried really hard at PF my senior year, qualled to STOC, Cali State, and fake qualled to nats. I'm currently the debate coach for Fullerton Union.
What I like to see in round:
Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for. You do not need to extend evidence, just your claim and warrant. They can be paraphrased.
You also cannot just extend some arbitrary number for your impact. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.
Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious.
Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.
Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.
Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.
What I don't like to see in round:
Sloppy crossfires and crossfires in general: Crossfire isn't very meaningful to me and I will likely not enjoy it. If your opponent makes a concession or says something damning, bring it up in a speech. Otherwise, I will not care. If crossfire is a screaming match, then the participants will get insta 27 speaks, perhaps lower.
Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.
Rudeness: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd.
Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.
Crossfire: If you skip grand cross then +.2 speaks for everyone in the round and a minute of prep added to everyone's clock.
Postrounding: I encourage postrounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.
The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a miniscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.
Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.
I have been associated with the speech & debate program since 2016. I have judged a few competitions - Congress and Public Forum. Here are my preferences:
1. I appreciate debaters maintaining the decorum, at all times
2. Make sure to follow the rules, at all times
3. Treat your opponent(s) with respect and dignity, just like how you would like to be treated
4. Understand and practice the difference b/w speaking affirmatively vs speaking loudly
5. To me, good content is one where there is strong evidence to support your arguments
6. I appreciate meaningful, relevant statistics/data points that support the evidence
7. I appreciate a good summary towards the end highlighting key impacts
8. Speak at an acceptable pace. Being clear and concise is important to me that speaking fast
Wish you best!
IMPORTANT: (From Tara Bhagat) If anyone reading this feels that debate or the debate community isn't a safe place for them and wants someone to talk to about it, no matter how small the issue, please reach out. If I or someone I know has made you feel unsafe, please do not hesitate to let me know so I can attempt to rectify the situation and/or change my behavior. Email me at email@example.com or just hit me up on Facebook.
TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me...please)
Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; currently studying computer science, economics, and math at ASU
- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted
- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO
- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy
- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient
- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus
- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded
- First summary should extend turns and key defense
- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do
- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it
- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn
- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one
- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick
- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"
- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary
- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)
- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss
- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names
- If you plan on spreading...don't
- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard
- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to
- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks
- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.
- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!
- Creative sports, Kanye, or Kendrick Lamar references will get you a boost in speaks
- Have fun!
Second year lay judge.
1. Do not speak too fast. Be Clear.
2. Rather than just reading cards, make sure to clearly warrant everything you say in round.
3. Make sure your arguments are consistent throughout the round.
4. Any arguments made in final focus must have been mentioned in summary.
5. Be sure to weigh clearly. Interactive weighing is great.
6. Do not be rude to your opponents during the round.
I don’t like to see excessive aggression in debates.
I am a parent judge, and I am fairly new at judging debate. I do not mind if you spread unless it is incoherent. Please speak clearly or I will not be able to flow your points. Make sure you have sufficient evidence and reasoning to back up your arguments.
Most importantly, please be respectful to your opponents and have fun debating.
I am a parent judge -I will write down what i think is important, but if you go too fast, I might not catch what you say and miss things -I will try to be fair, but explain what you say - if I don't understand something I wont vote off it -Emphasize what you think is important to the round and why it is important -Rudeness is not tolerated and be nice to your opponents
I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon