SF Roosevelt Sweetstakes
2020 — Online, SD/US
Novice Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
if you get me in LD somehow god help you
Sophomore at bxsci, I like K's more but I can definitely keep up with a policy V policy round.
As long as nothing is blatantly problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) u can read anything.
Policy v Policy
- good impact calc wins rounds and can make decisions a lot clearer in these rounds, given that both teams will probably leverage extinction impacts
- internal link analysis and arguments about how advocacies can better access aff impacts etc will be a really good tiebreaker and probably get u good speaks if done well
- mostly normal stuff but just tell me how to vote in the final rebuttals
K v Policy
- clash debates are super fun to watch but probably harder to judge- a coherent 2AR/2NR that assumes their offense is really necessary for these rounds.
- aff teams should definitely try to outframe the neg, but I find that many policy teams use that as an excuse to not engage the links. specific 2AC link defense/turns can be super effective and can actually give you leverage on a lot of framing arguments (as an example of contingently good state action)
- neg teams can read generic links (specific ones are better tho) but you need to contextualize that to the aff in the block
- please be more nuanced than "they use the state and the state is bad for x reason"- I'll obviously vote on it if conceded but I've watched way too many debates where the neg teams main explanation of the link is that they use the state. explain the implications of that as well as how it ties into your theory of power, i think the best use of these is probably to garner some mutual exclusivity with the perm but I'll evaluate it how u present it
K v K
- probably my favorite type of debate to watch
- if u do good analysis on how both theories of power interact i will literally love u and probably give u high speaks
- aff teams need to answer no perms in method debates and neg teams need to notice when its dropped and extend it in the 2nr- i dont super love the arg but it always frustrates me seeing the 1ar sit hard on the perm without answering theory and the 2nr just not extending it at all
- u can use confusing jargon if its explained in the speeches or somewhere in cross- i understand how fun it is to spread big words (trust me) but if you dont make a coherent argument then i cant flow it and evaluate it
- go really deep into the links and perm
- clever framing in the rebuttals will up ur speaks and get u pretty far
K aff V FW/T
- these are super fun to judge as well
- much more nuanced than a lot of people think- framework is one of the most unique arguments in debate and is probably the only time i wont roll my eyes at a procedural
- a lot of people say aff teams should be tangentially related to the topic and I agree from a strategic standpoint but if you end up sitting on the impact turn in the 2ar it probably doesnt matter that much (though u shld be somewhat related to the resolution if ur considering making an aff because its a lot more strategic)
- i find myself more persuaded by defensive arguments than offensive ones- you obviously need to extend a coherent offensive claim but filtering their offense through a smart counterinterp can change a lot in the way i see the round
- aff teams need a coherent reason for why they need the ballot. if they ask you "why vote aff?" in 1ac cross please just say why u need the ballot instead of something like "we just gave u 8 minutes on why u shld vote aff". you just gave us 8 minutes on why the strategy the 1AC endorses is good, they are very obviously asking why u need the ballot. if u stumble on this question u shld talk to ur coach or captain because the ballot becomes a very important point in these rounds.
- i probably seem redundant but good framing in the 2ar/2nr goes soooooooooooo far, especially in these debates- tell me what you need to win and how you achieved it in the round
T vs policy
- i probably have the least experience here but from what ive seen i really enjoy these debates
- i default to competing interps
- good analysis on ground and limits is really fun to judge
- i have a high threshold for voting on theory youve been warned
- i lean aff for 3+ condo
- if a 1NC has 1 line of aspec hidden in the 1NC and they extend it in the block it warrants new 1AR responses (if the 2NR goes for it ill dock speaks but still evaluate it)
- for high theory just make sure you're explaining your args very clearly, i havent actually read that much of the lit but ive been exposed to a lot of it through debate enough that i can evaluate the arguments you go for- this shouldn't be different than any other judge
- if you don't go for the alt, I'll need to vote on the K as a non unique disad to the aff.
- spreading is fine, i'll say clear as many times as i need to (if i say it more than 3 times ur speaks r probably getting docked UNLESS it is online debate)
- references to naruto, hunter x hunter, and FMAB will give u +0.2 speaks if theyre good (k teams shld have a field day on FMAB)
I'm a policy debater, so I'm probably not super familiar with all of the pf jargon and norms.
I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.
Keep it simple for me. Make your points very clear. Be kind. be professional. Have fun!
Hello! My name is Kappie,
I firmly believe that if you can run it well, anything will work.
I'm not an old man like my former coach, I can listen to quicker speeds in round. But dont be abusive about it.
Things you definitely shouldn't run with me as your judge, but if they win in round I will begrudgingly vote for:
1. Any form of the argumentation "Economy > Human Life"
If Any forms of prejudice argumentation against any types of people pop up I will not vote for you.
if it ends up being a "This card says this and my card says this" and it just goes back and forth all round, i will call for it.
I will vote where the flow takes me, if you do not extend or do not attack, I will not make the jump for you. If you do not extend a card I will do the same.
I will give oral comments/critiques, but I will not disclose.
If you have any larger, more in-depth questions about my Paradigm, just ask me pre-round!
Ultimately, have fun! Debate good and keep it competitive!
Congress is very fun, and can be competitive. I take this event seriously so please take it just as seriously.
I enjoy informative, evidence based speeches. But I implore you to give me a speech that is emotional too. If somthing affected you personally, use that emotion. Give us a more emotional than informational speech, but you do have to keep some form of information in there.
I have judged for Public Forum for years now, judging at the highest level in nationally regarded tournaments like Berkeley, Stanford, and the Tournament Of Champions.
Despite all of this, I strongly dislike spreading, value criterion arguments and the like. I believe in the good old Crossfire debate style that made Public Forum famous in the first place. Speak clear, loud, and well. Enunciate your words. Explain clearly why I should care about what you are saying. The better speaker you come across as, the more likely I will vote for you.
I have strong distaste for preposterous arguments. Your arguments should be backed up by evidence. The more evidence, the better.
I am new to debate. I will appreciate debaters to speak clearly and not to speak too fast.
oakton '22 - email@example.com - add me to the email chain
i went 3-1 at novice wacfl my sophomore year
tldr; traditional pf judge that's tech>truth
1) weigh and compare at every single level of the debate to minimize intervention
2) pf fast is fine, spreading even with a doc is not
3) i have very little experience with progressive argumentation but i am willing to vote on anything as long as its warranted, run it at your own risk, and no tricks
4) read content warnings with anonymous opt outs and ample response times
- 2nd rebuttal must frontline all responses on the arg they collapse on, but collapsing isn't a must
- if both teams don't weigh i will flip a coin to decide who wins - weighing wins my ballot
- i presume loser of coin flip/first speaking team if no presumption warrants are read, but i'd much rather vote off of any risk of offense
- you can skip gcx for a minute of prep
- i will only call for ev if a team tells me to, do evidence comparison in round
- asking constructive questions after round is good! being toxic after round is bad. i disclose after rounds with feedback
- i have minimal experience with progressive arguments but if you do run them explain nearly everything, minimize jargon, and run it at your own risk because i might make a wack decision
- read content warnings - err on the side of caution, if you're not sure if a CW is needed ask anyways. these need to be anonymous opt outs, and i'd prefer an anonymous google form over something like phone numbers for texting which can be traced on the wiki for example
- i give high speaks starting from a 28.5, only way you can get low speaks is by reading tricks or reading any problematic arguments/comment which will get you L20s
- comment "ethan gettin sturdy" on this youtube video and tell me you did it for +1 each
if you have any other questions ask before round or on messenger
debate can be really stressful and i get the worst nerves when i compete - if there's anything at all i can do to try and make the round less intimidating or more accessible, please let me know before the round or reach out to me on messenger
if none of this makes sense, Karin Liu, Charles Huang, Nathaniel Yoon, Alex Wang (who I regularly destroy in Minecraft) and Roy Tiefer have similar takes on debate
I am currently a Public Forum and Congress debater at Lincoln High School, with some experience in policy.
Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you, I will shout "clear" if I cannot. I don't like paraphrase cases, but I know most teams run them in pf, just don't expect me to write down all of the authors names.
When extending, please warrant your extensions and do not simply say "extend the Johnson evidence."
Please refrain from identity politics, I really don't think it is fair to use race/gender orientation as an advantage in the debate space, and those arguments generally take away from the core of the topic.
I generally give high speaks unless you are rude in round or don't fill up time/don't try.
Empirical evidence is best
Probability> Magnitude> Timeframe
If I happen to be judging you in novice LD, make sure you are clear on impacts and convince me what to vote on, as I have no experience in that area and will otherwise judge it like I would a policy round.
Hi, my name is Shafrir Pervez and I am currently a student at Lincoln High School in South Dakota.
I am a PF debater and a traditional judge.
Make sure to...
-Explain warrants for responses
-Impact weigh; establish why your impacts are superior
-Explain evidence and turns, don't just say it
I go by what is put down on the flow, when anything is mentioned, make sure to tell me where to look. Try your best to be specific so I can flow everything.
Let me know if there is anything I can do to make your experience better, I will try my best to help.
If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask!
Most importantly, have fun!!!
firstname.lastname@example.org he/him; all speaker positions at some point; 2nd year at bronx; certified hacker bitch.
- as long as its not problematic i will vote on it (can be fear of death bad but not death good)
- judge instruction
- argument = claim + warrant + impact
- tech> truth but the more true an argument is the easier it is to win
- i will always vote for the team that does the better debating, you do not need to tell me to vote for the team that does the better debating. both teams can argue about what "the better debating" means but i will always vote for the team that does the better debating
i see too many people putting what strategies are good on their paradigms and i believe that is up to the debater; these are more of my ideological preferences that are rather key to my ballot
i doubt i will be judging these in the future but just in case
- i do these a lot LOL probs 1 for prefs if k
- any k debate i can adjucate; familiar with most theories
- THE CAPITALISM KRITIK IS THE BEST KRITIK OF ALL TIME
- the permutation will be hard for me to buy from the aff - defend something or I'm not flowing it
- if its a framework debate don't be afraid to try out weird stuff, doesn't have to be about models and im about 50/50 on them, but i do evaluate aff offense first and must be answered
- defense is needed
- debate is probably a game, but it can also be other things, but it will always be a game
- i care about procedural fairness; it's an impact
kritiks versus plantexts
- i'd rather you have a link to the plan but sometimes you gotta go fw and that's ok
- impact calculus
- i care about case defense a lot
- long overviews i will be willing to flow unlike other people but i do not recommend it; see James Donovan for more
- please go one off, we know you're not going for the other 6 you read anyways; see Alexander Eum for more
- evidence quality matters a LOT
- see warrants on t/l
policy v policy
- default to util unless persuaded otherwise
- probability times magnitude always; non negotiable , then timeframe
- you can kick advantages
- not the most qualified but can still judge one of these well
- will vote on any cp if debated well
- judge kick is cringe and won't vote on it if you're looking for an easy way out; i will know when it matters
- cp theory is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team, but tech over truth of course
- internal links make my job much more easier
- love politics disads (not a joke)
- competing models
- cards >>>
--CASE DEBATE IS LITERALLY EPIC WHY DONT YALL DO MORE OF IT
--aff AND neg teams should leverage this much more than they do
--i adore impact turns, impact d etc, this goes for every other section in this paradigm. impact turn almost anything and everything (yes, even death, side note spark = true nuclear winter cancels out warming is j true)
--impact calc is crucial, on both sides
--framing pages aren’t enough to answer a disad completely – it can help with 2ar impact calc but you need actual defense on the disad itself
- if its not condo i probably won't reject the team
- love these if done well
- love aspec but if it's dropped 1AR gets new answers that I will evaluate
- funny jokes about literally any Mamaroneck debater will give you a 30
- if the round finishes in under 85 minutes, i will give everyone +.5 speaks
-tell me "my prada's at the cleaners" so i know you read this and i'll give you +.2 speaks but it has to be before the round starts
-be kind, respectful, understanding, and persuasive and you get great speaks
OTHER STUFF VERY IMPORTANT
- if you ever need to talk abt debate or anxiety and stuff like that my email is open and my fb is easy to find
- literally do not be a dick cannot stress this enough, if you do this i will give you a 25 and call you out on it i was an dick in debate for a very large period of time and am working more and more to make debate an inclusive space so should you
- thanks to: Emma Basch, Luca Musk, Alexander Eum, Eyan Majeed, Aliya Fisher, Rylie Torguson, Isabella Vidal, Akif Choudhury, Kat Rjavinski, Guy Bloom, and James Donovan for influencing my thoughts on debate
screw you izzy <3
- rvi's make me barf
write my ballot for me in final focus
if the round finishes 47 minutes after tab round start time ill give everyone +.3 speaks
I am a first time judge and parent of one of the contestants. I did watch the debates last year very closely, so I am familiar with the format. This year with all of us being remote, it is really important to explain yourself slowly and clearly. If you go too fast, it would be really hard to understand.
- Follow the rules and respect your opponents and their speaking time.
- Provide very clear arguments.
- Make sure the important arguments from your side are given both in the summary and final focus.
- Speak over your opponents
- Don't be rude.
All the best.
I am a fourth-year varsity policy debater at Sioux Falls Roosevelt. I am a 2A/1N.
chain - email@example.com
-NOVICE PUBLIC FORUM-
Narrow down the debate in the last few speeches, don't go for too much. Give judge instruction, tell me where to vote.
Clash -- respond to your opponent's arguments. If you choose to debate about the quality of evidence in the round at least have some sort of detailed comparison (don't rely on args like this though)
do impact calc -- weigh your impacts and contextualize your arguments
Use prep and fill speech time -- these go hand in hand. It is not strategic to have all of your prep left for the last speech and then proceed not to use it
PLEASE do not just re-read one of your earlier speeches in the summary or final focus.
Speed is fine, if you normally speak fast there is no reason you should feel the need to slow down for me
don't be rude or problematic. unethical behavior in the round will result in me voting you down.
Lastly, enjoy yourself!
I don't judge many policy rounds bc there isn't a policy circuit in SD anymore, but if I happen to be judging you, feel free to ask me questions before the debate :)
- As of my junior and senior year, I have read ks on the aff and neg. I'm most familiar with settler colonialism, cap, academy/university-esque critiques, IR etc. I'm fairly well-read when it comes to Wilderson, Moten & Harney, and SOME Baudrillard
- Although I'm comfortable with this type of debate, I am still unfamiliar with a lot of k literature, especially once you start getting into the more high-theory end of things. Don’t let this deter you from reading your k though, just explain your stuff
- k affs: I have a pretty high threshold for k affs when it comes to explaining the significance of voting affirmative - this does not mean you need to win spill-over warrants etc, rather set a standard for evaluation in the round, and explain your method of engagement. In k v k debates, k aff teams need to spend more time on the permutation
- I'm pretty comfortable with most policy args - it's been a while since I've read a straightforward policy strat, but as long as you have a clear internal link chain and are sufficiently weighing your impacts I should not have a problem evaluating the round
Lastly, unethical behavior will result in me voting you down. I'd prefer if you didn't read args that tell your opponent to quit/"get out" of debate - but besides that, do what you want.
Jokes are appreciated : )
Hi! I’m Zach, a fourth year policy debater at Berkeley Prep!
I tend to read the K and am familiar with most K lit bases (primarily "high theory" if it means anything to you), but will vote on anything as long as you win your offense. DON’T CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY OR OVERADAPT! I’m just making you aware of how I tend to view debate, but will vote for the team that wins :). Novice year is supposed to be about learning and expanding your knowledge of the activity, so I’ll give lots of comments and encourage you to debate the way you want!
Yes, I want to be on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Online Debate: SLOW DOWN at the top of speeches, especially if you know your audio already sounds like you’re speaking from inside a washing machine. Try and use best microphone/wifi you can, but I understand if you don’t have that kind of access and will be patient :). I’d also love for people to talk about/consider the form of this new kind of debate when possible. I find it hilarious when I see a team read cybernetics or tech args without once mentioning that we are literally on zoom.
Condo is fine until I look annoyed, then 2A’s are invited to go for it. I think perf con is the biggest independent reason to reject a team, especially if you’re reading a K aff. Topicality debates bore me and I’m quick to vote on reasonability. I think kritikal theory args are cool but you have to impact out your args as much as possible.
Case Debate/Impact Turns:
LOVE THIS. I love when the neg talks about the aff, challenges their impact directly, challenges their advantages, it’s literally my favorite thing. From death good to Dedev, the impact turn is definitely one of my favorite kinds of debates. I think 2NRs/2ARs here should be smarter and sit on the bigger picture arguments, instead of extending six pieces of evidence on four separate issues that don’t really matter to the debate more broadly. Especially against K affs, I think impact turning their method (resiliency bad, IDpolitics bad, party bad) and presumption are really underutilized.
2NR/2AR need to write my ballot. I understand most of what is going on, but need you to do the work on what that means for the world of the aff. Impact calc is a MUST. Know that I have not been involved in a lot of these debates so I am a little out of my comfort zone judging them. That being said, explain what’s happening at the important parts and be clear as to what is winning you the debate and you’ll get my ballot.
FW Vs. K Affs:
Aff: More offense. Counterinterps rarely do much and if they do you have to explain them to me. What does your model of debate look like? How does it resolve their offense? How does it resolve yours? I am reluctant to vote on “they excluded our aff/scholarship/position” type arguments if there is a TVA or switch side claim in the 2NR, I think that these exclusion type args are substituted for offense against their actual framework. It is very easy to garner offensive turns on most of the shitty truth testing/cede the political turns that no negative team will actually go for and you can now force them to have to defend. Just win your offense and why it outweighs.
Neg: Don’t change your strategy for me. If you like going for fairness, go for fairness. If you go for movements, go for movements. But know that I need a lot more impact explanation if you go for a framework arg that isn’t something to do with education and political engagement. I tend to find “they also rely on fair judging” and “debate is a game” as annoying args with no real purpose by the end of the debate. My biggest piece of 2NR advice is to flow the 1AR closely. K teams almost never do enough 1AR work on framework and you can take advantage of 1AR drops/warrantless arguments to make most of their offense go away. Win why your offense turns the aff or their offense, and talk about the aff as much as possible.
Ks on the Neg:
Neg: Mostly read kritiks but it means I’ll have a pretty high threshold to vote on it-you have to explain the theory and can’t expect me to vote on “they dropped ressentiment, libidinal economy, information is dissuasive, etc.” without any further warranted explanation of what that means for the debate. I think people underestimate the benefit of reading a smaller K in the 1NC with other off case and then blowing it up in the block. I also think K teams have most of their trouble on the alternative, explaining the alternative, or winning that it’s enough to overcome deficits in framework. As far as the 2NR goes, I’m really picky. You have to give some kind of judge direction, write my ballot if you can. You can use framework to overcome problems with your alt, but I’m hesitant to completely moot an aff based on a dropped FW DA that hasn’t been impacted out.
Aff: Stick to your guns. Most of these Ks try to distract you from talking about what you want to talk about (your aff), so use it more. Your advantages are also offensive reasons why most of their theory isn't contextually true. Use the 1AC more. I’m not talking about adding a bunch of framing cards to the bottom, but instead you should use the advantages, impacts, and value statements behind your aff as offense against the K instead of links. This only works if your advantages are good, though. I think terror and disease advantages are terrible against the kritik and generally K teams have a very easy time answering them.
Hinges almost completely on the perm. I’d almost recommend negatives kick the alt in the 2NR if you’re winning enough offense and turns case analysis. “No Perms in Method Debates” is an arg that isn’t super convincing but 1ARs almost always drop or mishandle it. That being said, I love these debates even if they are hard to evaluate. The brunt of your work on the aff and neg should be offensive reasons why the perm is or isn’t true.
--- Do not clip. if you don't know what that means, ask me before the round. It refers to representing that you read evidence, or parts of evidence, that you didn't. It's cheating.
---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.
Feel free to ask me anything before the round or any clarifying questions about this paradigm. Have fun!