Damien Chuck Ballingall Memorial Invitational Virtual Edition
2020 — La Verne/Virtual, CA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi my name is Anwar Abu Hilal, I am a parent judge. I have judged several rounds before. My only preferences are that you speak clearly and make your arguments clear. Also please do your best to not go over your time and do not interrupt your opponents.
Current policy debater at Southwestern College.
Yes, please include me in the email chain email@example.com
Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.
Preferred name: Kat
I would like to be on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm currently a second-year Varsity/Open debater at Liberty University, and I debated policy 4 years in high school. As of now, I've gone to the NDT once. I've judged Policy, PF, LD, and various speech events.
I'm truth over tech (yay!) BUT if you assert something repeatedly without warrants, I'm not going to vote for it. And, no, re-reading the tag and the author is not warrant analysis. Explain to me why the Truth matters in this instance, and how it lowers the credibility of your opponent's argument.
I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.
If you're a K team, I've got some good news for you: I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with the Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.
If you win the following, you'll more than likely win the debate:
1.) The Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.
2.) Impact weighing. I hate nothing more than two ships passing in the night with no clash. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).
3.) Alt explanation. Dear Lord, this is arguably the most important. If you win the above, but you don't tell me what the world of the Alt is, I'll probably scream (internally, of course, while I pull my hair making a decision). In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links.
Do these things, and you're golden. :^)
Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.
I also think that most Counter-Interps are super wack, but I'll vote on any one, esp is the other team drops it.
ROB's are muy importante. Gotta lmk what the ballot and I are supposed to be doing in this round.
I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2-3 minutes. Pls.
Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:
I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense. If an increase in US spending leads to global economic collapse, the least you could do is tell me how.
Core generics like the Japan DA are always an option in front of me, as long as the link is well explained and the Counterplan you run with it doesn't link. This being said, explain why the CP is preferable to the Aff.
Also, Consult CP's are garbage.
Impact calc is everything!!! If you're blanking, look at my laptop. It has timeframe, magnitude, and probability stickers in case you forget (ok, they weren't meant for you but take what you can get. I won't tell).
Spreading is fine, I flow by ear, but if I have to say 'clear' more than 3 times I'm just gonna stare at you until you realize that I stopped flowing.
I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.
Impact turns are grand. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.
I know of a Liberty debater who argues FW very well, and that's because they impact it out. This being said:
1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.
2.) Clash is pretty important also, otherwise, policy debate would be Lincoln Douglas-- just two people talking at each other. Wait, am I allowed to say that? Oh well, it's in here now.
3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other basic K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.
And, yeah, I'm gonna briefly discuss T here: definitely a voter. Tell me the violation, why it matters, and how it could mess up yours and others' debate experience. But please, for the love of all that is holy, don't pull out 10 T violations. I'll flow the first 5 and see where it goes.
>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.
>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.
>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.
>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.
>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.
>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.
>Finally... have funsies. :^)
Onto the Fun Stuff (TM):
I love it when debaters have a sense of humor. Have fun and crack a joke every once in a while; debating/judging is exhausting, you know.
Over Quarantine, I've been binging Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles-- do with that info what you will.
If you ask me to dap you up before or after the debate, a minor speaks boost is in your future. (this is pre-corona. a virtual dap is also acceptable.)
If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will call you out in-round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes 'punking' the other team.
Rhetoric could be a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I could vote on it.
Things about me:
- Policy Debater at Liberty University
- And yes I would like to be on the email chain at email@example.com
- Also I love the show scandal so if you reference the show scandal within your speech you will not be disappointed in your speaker points :)
For my LD and PF folks:
1. line by line is so important to me specifically in the rebuttal and final focus speech ---- Clash is very important the less clash the lower the speaks the more clash the higher the speaks.
2. impact calc is so important especially when you essentially have the same impact which means that most of the time these debates are gonna come down to who accesses their i/l better (hint hint wink wink this is key)
3. also time yourselves not gonna lie I become super annoyed when I have to time debates
4. and for the Love of God be nice to one another I have watched too many debates where debaters are rude and condescending to one another and as the judge those debates become sooo awkward for me really fast. If you are being rude or do something way out of line your speaks will definitely reflect that and if your rude enough the ballot will also reflect that.
5. I am a speaks fairy which means I usually start somewhere at a 28.7 and then move up based on the debate anything lower than this and you probably messed up somewhere in the debate.
6. I am always open to question after my RFD. As a debater I think it is important that you know why you won or loss a debate in a way that makes sense to you.
7. Also if you are gonna read a framework in your constructive you should probably use it during the rest of the debate also. If you are not gonna use it do not read it, but if you do read one its usually where I start when looking to make a decision in the round, because I believe the framework is supposed to frame the round, which means all of your args should probably be filtered/tied to your framework.
8. Most importantly do you and have fun debate is a game dont make this space unenjoyable for someone else
(Last Updated 6/10/21)
General (read in addition to specific event):
I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.
I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.
I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.
I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.
I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.
I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.
I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.
I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.
You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.
I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.
I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.
I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.
I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.
I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.
Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.
Put me on the Email Chain--- Johnson.firstname.lastname@example.org I am a current Policy Debater at Liberty University.
Top level Stuff
-Tech over truth
-Anything else is debatable
The action of the CP and how you solve each IL of the aff must be clearly explained in the 2NC and on if you want me to vote on it
On many process CP’s, Perm-Do CP is rather convincing and is probably a good strategy for you to win the debate
I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff, unless you can win the theory debate behind those things.
DA’s versus case debates are probably my favorite debates to watch/judge.
Clearly articulate the link and what the impact is
Always do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR if you want me to vote the DA o/w solvency of the aff
Big fan of wack DA’s so run them, but explain them
Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. Three conditional options is probably good for negative flexibility, anymore more is probably pushing it a little. Granted, conditionality theory is all debatable.
Not familiar with most K bases beyond the stereotypical ones of Cap, Security, militarism, exc, so explain the parts of the K if u want me to vote for you.
Contextualize your links to that specific debate and explain in detail why that they are true
Spend less time reading cards and more analysis on why your argument is true
Long overviews are complicated/hard to follow, instead you should focus more on the line by line.
Explain why the Alt solves
Have Warrants for you argument and don’t just make claims
In Round Stuff
Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent.
I will vote you down if you do something super offensive
Speaker Points will reflect if I believe you were overly aggressive, rude, or just a jerk in the round
Again, HAVE FUN
In order for me to vote for you Mpxs in a round make sure you extend the link, IL and Mpx in the final focus. Please collapse down to one contention that you go for in the final focus( I promise this will get you better speaks).I believe the second to last final focus is inherently more difficult. So I will give higher speaks when executed well. Also Please Please Please tell me how to write my ballot backed up by warrants. Also I love Impact turns and if you run them well, I will give you great speaks.
Because of the nature of online debate: please make sure everyone is ready and can hear before you begin speaking. Ask for a thumbs up! and then actually look to see that all thumbs went up!
Theory does not belong in PF so please do not run it! If you want to run theory, there are two other debate events where that works. PF was designed for a reason and I am super baffled by the race to make it as much like Policy as possible when it is not Policy! The shorter speaking times make PF a very specific genre of debate; arguments that play out in Policy or even LD do not translate well in PF.
Please share all cards you are reading in a speech either before the speech or right after. This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.
I am up for a fast paced round where delivery is at a fairly rapid clip. Spreading, however, has no place in PF so do not go there. See my comments about theory above.
As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!
Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.
I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round because you think they sound cute or persuasive. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes.
Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.
I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."
Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'.
Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!
I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.
I hate short, blippy cards and reading one right after another is actually really hard to flow.
Head Coach George Washington High School 10 Years. High School policy debater in a time before computers and when case debates were good.
Experience judging on this topic: none. But I've coached and done research on it.
If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvienenced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.
Most Importantly: I haven't judged circuit policy in a long time, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.
If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.
1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I haven't judged at this level in a while, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed. Your arguments don't matter if I don't understand what you're saying. This is a communicative activity.
2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disapointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitly a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.
3. I'm comfortable evalutating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.
4. I will call for cards. So if your evidence is bad, don't read it.
5. A dropped argument only matters if you tell me why.
Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of the off case positions being read on this resolution (Fossil Fuels subsidies) but not all of them, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.
I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.
Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.
As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.
Hi, lay/parent judge.
Just talk slow and clearly. Be respectful.
*Online Specific: Unless a tournament prefers a specific method, I prefer e-mail chains. I'll drop my e-mail to be included when I'm in your call. I am almost always 5-10 minutes early, unless I'm judging flights, in which case I'll get there when I get there.
Please go slower than you would normally. I'll let you know if you cut out and let you restart from the point connectivity becomes an issue. I'll do my best on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a policy (ex. if it takes 15 minutes to reconnect, that's a forfeit), I'll go by those.
Background: 3 yrs of college traditional policy (Stock/CPs/T, nothing cool) & some parli. I coach PF. Pronouns are she/her.
I believe paraphrasing will just never be as honest as reading cut cards. Because of this, I will try to incentivize better norms: if you don't paraphrase, tell me sometime in the round: "all evidence we introduced was in cards, boost our speaks" and I will by .5. To clarify - if the 1st speaker doesn't paraphrase in constructive, the .5 boost goes to the first speaker. If the 2nd speaker doesn't paraphrase new cards read in rebuttal, it's .5 for them.
Update: The cards I'm seeing in e-mail chains are giving me an existential crisis. I will gladly drop an arg on my flow if the analysis is done on how bad your opponents' ev is for their arg and it checks out!
Update #2: I'm getting really tired of hearing the phrase "CTRL-F this" during ev exchange. Please have cut cards with full citations. I will err on the side of the team that calls this out as bad practice. What that means depends on how egregious the ev is. A team giving you a 30 page PDF and saying "CTRL-F" something that still makes it difficult to find the exact section... I'll probably drop the ev if you make the argument I should.
If it's in final focus, it better be in summary - defense included. I also think second rebuttal should cover both cases.
Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Dumping as many blippy responses as you can on the flow to see which one your opponents forget to group/cover and try to exploit in the back half = overrated, not fun, will probably annoy me.
Hate "offensive overviews" in the 2NC.
Love smart concessions.
Econ args need more of an impact than GDP goes down/stock market crashes/the "economic bubble" bursts/etc. Tell me why any of that matters.
I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize mitigating structural violence," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too.
All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I even give you access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).
I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP/anything that appeals more to my very traditional policy background. I'm a fan of straightforward plan/counterplan debates. The more progressive, the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc for me to follow, and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.
If it's the first round of the morning, the coffee hasn't kicked in yet, skip everything above (other than the "this is online debate please go slow," go even slower now) - hello, I'm your lay judge this round, please debate accordingly.
Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out. I've seen teams use Google Forms to accomplish this.
Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.
Don't post-round, thanks.
Having a sense of humor and being friendly toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. I've given two 30s this season and one was for the nicest debater I've ever come across.
If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
I graduated from Liberty University in 2020. I was a debater at Liberty from 2017-2020. I ran both policy and ks.
Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. My email: email@example.com
Overall: Do what you know! I am very flexible with debates, and I want you to do your best in a round.
That being said, here are some of my thoughts on specific arguments,
I started out as a policy debater and am familiar with the language.
Affs: By the end of the debate, your aff has to do something if you are going for it.
Affs should be topical or have a good reason why they might be on the edge of the topic. I am less happy to judge rounds of Affs who willing try to skirt the topic and T debates. I come down on the side of you should be a part of the topic that can have debates.
Just bite the link and debate it out.
Neg: DAs are fun, use a good link to the Aff. Funky CPs are fun but make sure that it can solve some part of the Aff. If there is not a good distinction or it is murky about the differences between the CP and the Aff, I believe the perm.
Have good perm defenses for CPs. I don’t really like PICs (small ones) but I will vote on them.
Condo is 2 CPs, maybe 3. Beyond that, I won’t believe you.
Please stop with 3-5 small T violations, have a solid one and go for it.
I am very familiar with critical literature. I have run Cap, semiotics, environment k, and antiblackness with my partner.
If you want me to vote for you, you need to frame the debate around your issue. If you do not do this, I am more inclined to vote for the bigger impact in the round.
Affs: Have a reason that the topic is bad. Have a consistent theory of power or structure of the world. At the end of the debate I should know what your aff is, why it is important, and what your aff does/mean.
Neg v policy affs: Have a consistent theory of power and how the aff fits into the theory that you are making. Have a consistent and solid link. I like good links. You should have alternative should do something.
HAVE A RESPONSE TO FRAMEWORK!!!!!!! UNTIL THE END OF THE DEBATE, PLEASE DON’T DROP IT.
Neg v K affs: Have an alternative theory over power and show how it interacts with the aff’s theory of power. Have a good link and contextualize it to the aff.
Have impacts though, and don’t just say the word, like condo bad, have reasons why it is bad. I will say that the neg should not run more than 3 conditional cp/k arguments, but I am flexible.
Please be polite in the debates, but I will not take off speaker points for sassiness. I enjoy lively debates and would like people to keep the debates interesting. Good puns will get you extra speaker points if they make me smile.
If you have questions at the end of the round and want to talk, feel free! I’m ok with answering questions and reasoning about my decisions. If you have questions after the round, feel free to email me, I keep my flows.
Ultimately, have fun in debate. I want you to do what you know best and be comfortable with doing it. I can adapt easily as a judge, just tell me what you want to do in a round.
My name is Zoey and I debated PF on the national circuit for all four years of high school at Rowland Hall in Salt Lake City Utah. I qualified for nationals two years in a row and have made it pretty far in some high skill national tournaments, such as Alta, Jack Howe, ASU, etc. I love debate and know a lot about debate so do not be worried about me being a lay judge in any way.
As for what I would like to see in rounds. First and foremost please please please be respectful. If I see or hear any homophobia, xenophobia, racism, or ignorance of any kind, wether in arguments or in cross, I will nuke your speaks if not drop your entire team. Abusiveness in arguments or presence is not welcome in the debate space. Additionally if I see debaters, specifically female or nonbinary ones, being spoken down to, interrupted, or made uncomfortable I will, again, either injure your speaks or drop you depending on the severity.
Okay, secondly, I am totally okay with progressive debate, speed, theory, K's, tricks, etc. If you are planning on speed, I would prefer you just speak at a pace where I can flow on my computer or, if needed, send me a doc. I am pretty good with theory and K's and tricks, but please if the other team is not do not use it as a cheap way to win, I will view that as bad debate.
As for speeches in general, I am tech over truth, but don't push that, lie, and be abusive. Framework is cool but not necessary. PLEASE FRONTLINE! Frontlining starts as early as second rebuttal, and I expect extensions to be from resolution to impact, do not just extend through ink. Additionally please collapse, taking on too many arguments at once makes for bad debate. I expect summaries to be the best speeches in the round because you have the most to do in just three minutes so make use of your time and learn what matters in a speech. Final focus is pretty simple, weigh weigh weigh, impact impact impact. I believe that weighing should be brought up in rebuttals, but I also understand not having enough time. That being said if one team weighs in rebuttal and extends through FF, and one team waits until FF to start, there will be a large advantage for the other team. Honestly just debate well, weigh, extend resolution to impact, collapse, and be respectful :)
This is a hot take but I love crossfire. BUT only when it is entertaining. Cross will in no way impact who wins or your speaks but if there is abuse that can change. Please make cross fun, yes use it as a way to answer questions you need answered, but also the best part about cross is making your opponents get flustered and feel behind. Use it to your advantage, it can help in speeches. If you bring up something said in cross during a speech I will flow it but in general I will not be flowing cross.
As for evidence, I have high evidence standards, I am cool with paraphrasing don't worry, I think it is needed in PF, but please have everything carded and ready to show your opponents. I will only call for cards if it is contended or seems sus.
If I am forgetting something feel free to ask me before the round starts! Also please be on time to rounds :) it will make me like you more.
um have fun, debate well, be kind, and good luck this szn :) <3
Brief background of my debate experience:
I have been involved in speech and debate since the 90's, having debated policy in high school for 4 years and another 4 years as a scholarship debater at USC (NDT debate). I also coached a LD program in a Southern CA high school a few years back. Now, I run a Public Forum program for HS2 Academy.
I will buy most reasonable arguments as long as they are well-supported. Generally tech > truth
Spreading is fine as long as it is CLEAR. Otherwise, your speaker points will reflect this.
Be courteous to each other. Rudeness will be reflected in your speaks.
2nd Rebuttal MUST respond to 1st Rebuttal or I consider arguments dropped
Prog: No Kritiks in PF for me (I just don't think it's the right forum); I may buy theory arguments as long as they're not frivolous or nonsensical.
I don't flow crossfire, but I will factor it in speaks.
Lay judge. Pls speak slowly and clearly.
I have been coaching & judging for 15 years, & though I’ve primarily been an Original Oratory/Informative Speaking coach, I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.
In Congress rounds, I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.
Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.
Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.
Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.
Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct.