TeleHealth Access for Seniors Charity Debate Classic
2020 — Zoom/Discord, FL/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi I'm Naina and I debate at LHP
Speed is fine but please don't spread
Collapse on one argument. Extend links, warrants, and impacts. Don't just read author names
Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.
If it’s not in summary and final focus, I won't vote off of it
COMPARATIVE WEIGHING. Tell me why I need to prefer your impact over your opponents impact
Don't run theory or ks - I'm not comfortable with them
I only feel comfortable voting on turns that are impacted and weighed
If you have any questions, fb message me
Elkins '20 | UT '24
I did pf for 2 years
messenger is preferred
***FOR TFA STATE- you MUST forward case docs to email@example.com
For outrounds if you still do bullet point 3 that would be very cool cause Bryan is getting very annoyed at this point
UPDATE: 3 ways to get an auto 30 (if only one person out of a team does it, only they get the auto).
1. Drake, amc, gamestop reference in any form
2. showing any pet on camera (dogs are the coolest)
3. emailing firstname.lastname@example.org saying that "Raj Solanki is a better debater than you" and showing proof before the round starts
Also After judging for a while I have realized that for my ballot weighing isnt as important as link debate ie: I could care less about the weighing a team does if they are losing on the link level so don't sacrifice proper frontlines and warranting just so you can say random buzzwords that I could care less about
Just make sure you are winning on the link level, if both teams get full access to their links that's when I look at the weighing
I will not evaluate any theory, tricks, Ks, etc., unless there is a violation in the round that hurts or excludes someone. Even then, I would prefer you point it out to me in paragraph form with a warrant and explanation rather than forcing me to evaluate progressive argumentation. If you read disclosure gl :)
I flow on my laptop and can type pretty fast so you can go as fast as you want pretty much but send a speech doc for constructive
If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(
if you run climate change on the con for the feb topic i doubt I'm gonna vote on it unless there is specific uniqueness to Africa
- My face when you sign post :) My face when you don't sign post :((((((((((((((
- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross
- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact
- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
- If I like what you are saying expect some very obvious head nodding
- Frontlining turns in second rebuttle are crucial
- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttle have a 100% probability
- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttle and frontline the entire thing
- Defense do be sticky till frontlined
- You don't have to extend at all in second rebuttle, just frontlining is cool with me
- Do all extensions with author names and the warrant behind them pls
- If you want me to vote off case offense, you have to extend uniqueness - link - impact and then you should be good
- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have an impact ie: if you extend a link turn you also have to extend the other teams impact
- If you give me some fire frontlining in first summary I will be very happy
- New evidence for frontlining is cool
- Since its 3 minutes try to extend the defense you find most important
- You gotta extend defense
- Weighing has to start here if you want me to evaluate it in the round
- Still extend uniqueness link and impact
- Extend weighing pls
- Don't be the partner who extends stuff that your partner didn't extend in summary
- Cross do be binding
- I like cross makes the debate kind of interesting
- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic
- Bless me and skip gc if you want
- I'll only call for evidence if it's SUPER important for the decision or the other team tells me to call for it
- You will have around a minute to pull out evidence - if there is something wrong ie: internet is out or there's a paywall that's cool just try to pull it up as fast as possible
- I'll try to disclose every round
- Post rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round. I can also email the flow to you so you can see what I saw in the round
- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round
- For Feb topic I default first speaking team if there is no offense
- Be toxic
- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way
- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those ists
- If you still for some reason want to run something progressive and are doing it for an easy ballot because you know your opponents can't respond properly I am NUKING speaks
I debated PF for four years (2016-2020) at Ravenwood HS in Brentwood, TN
1.) The singular most important thing for me is warranting. Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that evidence says. I like critical thinking. Smart, well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. If you are winning the warrant debate, you are probably winning the round.
2.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument. Even in front of "flow" judges I believe there is an advantage to the "narrative" style of debate (even when combined with line-by-line).
3.) First summary should extend defense now that there is an extra minute. My philosophy of the 3 min summary is that you should go for the same content but with more explanation and depth, however some rounds may require new arguments to be introduced in first summary for example. Also frontline turns at least in second rebuttal, that'd be pretty cool.
4.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. Many rounds I have to intervene and do work for the teams as they don't tell why their arguments are more important than their opponents. If teams don't weigh, I tend to give more credence to the first speaking team as they are still somewhat disadvantaged, but with 3 min summaries I am less lenient. Also on weighing, I think of weighing in layers, beginning with probability. You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.
5.) I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. For example, an argument about a conventional war seems more persuasive to me than an argument about a nuclear war. That being said, I will not punish you if – and I would even encourage you to – make novel and counter-intuitive arguments; I just expect that you will put in the work to persuade me.
6.) Please signpost! It makes it really hard for me to flow if you don't signpost. And if I can't flow, it makes it hard for me to evaluate the round. I'll likely miss what you're saying and we'll both be frustrated at the end of the round because you'll think I made the wrong decision and didn't consider what you said when in reality, I couldn't because I struggled to flow it.
7.) Chill out in round. No need to be overly aggressive and stuff, that doesn't really appeal to me. Especially in crossfire.
8.) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in the debate community (and really any community).
9.) Please don't spread. I hate it. Even in the rounds when I went fast as a competitor, I didn't enjoy debating at all. I'm also a fairly slow typer and I rarely have paper while I'm judging. If you absolutely have to spread, tell everyone before the round and make sure your opponents are ok with it, and send speech docs. Still, if you're going way too fast, I'll clear you.
10.) Please avoid progressive argumentation in front of me. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to evaluate these, but I also don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene (drop them) as necessary. I am unlikely to vote for theory, but if your opponents are being abusive, address it as a warranted voter, I prefer not to evaluate shells. I will not vote for Ks. If you run tricks in front of me, I will drop you immediately on the lowest possible speaks. If you rely on progressive argumentation because you're not good enough at substance, that's your decision, just make sure to strike me or else we'll both be very unhappy.
11.) If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks.
12.) Please don't be abusive. Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal. I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these. My threshold for what counts as a good response to these is extremely low. PLEASE feel free to call this behavior out. Furthermore, I don't like 3FFs and postrounding, I'll answer questions, but after a certain point it's just exhausting for everyone involved.
13.) Hate calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses.
I don't think anything here deviates too much from what could be expected as a "first year out" judge but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.
Don't forget to have fun in round!!
above all, be nice
Frank Ocean lyrics guarantee 30s for both members of the team
hi! i'm sanvi and i go to lake highland
- you can speak fast but please don't spread
- don't run theories, k's, etc., i don't understand them enough to vote off of them
- i vote first on weighing (make sure it is comparative, don't just restate your impact, extend it throughout the round)
- collapse on one or two arguments that you think you are winning and extend them throughout the round
- frontline offense in second rebuttal
- extend arguments in summary (i can't vote for you if you don't have any offense) and effectively frontline responses on your case, extend terminal defense on your opponents' case
- don't bring up new responses in second summary or final focus, i think it's unfair for the other team
- make sure your summary and final focus match
- i won't vote on turns unless you implicate them and weigh them against your opponents' arguments
- implicate all of your responses/arguments
- tell me why you won in final focus
- signpost in all of your speeches
- don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, islamophobic, ableist, etc., i'll drop you if you are
- remember to have fun!
feel free to message me on fb if you have any questions :))
yes chain email@example.com
Just debate well. I'll intervene as little as possible.
You don't care where I debated or what my speaker positions are, so let's just get into the debate-y things.
Here are some basic guidelines:
”All warfare is based on deception"- Sun Tzu
- Condo is probably good
-I'm fond of PICs- do with that information what you will
-ASPEC at the bottom of the T flow in a five-second blip gets new answers--cowards.
-I'm much more partial to copious amounts of case than I am an excessive number of off cases- but go off I guess, I'll flow it regardless.
-**RVIs are embarrassing luv, keep it to yourself xx
-I'm willing to vote on 0% risk
-I'll judge kick by default, but can be persuaded otherwise
- ***What's with this paraphrasing evidence nonsense? don't do this in front of me.
- Good for Ks. I think it's interesting how eventually it all leads back to policy.
- I'll only vote on your framing contentions if you carry them into your rebuttals
- Impact calc weighs into my ballot (bonus points if you use the policy terms)
- Go as fast as you want, I know how to flow lol
- Evidence checks don't come out of your prep time unless I think you're abusing it
- Answer the arguments in the order they were made- ( hard numbering <3333 )
- I don't care what you do with your prep, but time it yourself
If you have questions about a round that isn’t linked as part of my judging record, email me. A lot of it was deleted when I switched emails
Jokes about how much Michael Gergeni sucks will get you far.
Give me a song to listen to as I type my RFD. If I like it, I'll boost your speaks .2
Debated for 4 years at Anderson High School in Austin Texas in Public Forum and graduated in 2020
January 21: I DO NOT KNOW THE TOPIC please explain anything that is not common knowledge
Debate is a game:
Speed threshold: ~275 wpm
If you are going above 260-ish I would like a speech doc
Any theory or kritik that is being read should be sent to everybody in the round via speech doc
Second rebuttal has to frontline any turns or they are conceded
First summary only has to extend defense frontlined in second rebuttal, but it makes it easier to vote if they do it either way
IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though
I default competing interps, no RVIs
I am ok with any shell that you want to read
I believe that disclosure is true, pretty easy to win a round on disclosure theory in front of me
Very receptive to paraphrasing bad as well
I have an okay understanding of the literature and know how to evaluate a K within the round, but you should really explain the warranting to me if it isn't a stock and well-known kritik
If you have a wiki, have read the K previously, and still haven't disclosed it, I will drop you
I will not accept carded framing for the first time in first summary
If both sides link in, please weigh and don't just say you link in better
I will give very high speaks unless you do something that is heinous
For online debates, add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. Please send constructives in the email chain at the very minimum.
Debated in PF for four years at American Heritage and graduated in 2019. I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.
Tech > truth, but the best teams win on both fronts.
- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.
- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make the argument that presumption flows aff.
- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.
- I also have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech..
- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but I hate bad weighing. Don't do these 4 things.
1. Weighing that is not comparative
2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments
3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and probability weighing is usually defense that should've been read in rebuttal
4. New weighing in second final focus. I may still evaluate it if there's no other weighing in the round, but not too heavily.
- I will call for evidence if it's contested and key to my decision. I may also call for it if I'm personally interested to see what it says but in this instance it would have no effect on the decision. I generally tend to believe that reading evidence promotes intervention.
- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will probably drop the argument unless there's very good warranting.
- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.
- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.
- I have a good understanding of theory, but I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K.
- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good.
- I usually prefer to judge debates about the topic instead of something like paraphrasing, disclosure, or spec theory. However, I will still do my best to fairly evaluate these arguments despite my personal qualms of strong theory debaters bulldozing inexperienced teams. I may not reward speaks based on it, but I definitely don't intervene.
- I think speaks are arbitrary and debate is always better when it’s fun. Ask me to provide a really random question before the round begins and if either partner can answer correctly I’ll give a 30.
- You can respond to first constructive in the second constructive.
- I will bump speaks if you send a speech doc with cut cards.
- Humor’s great, especially sarcasm
- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine
- Postrounding is fine
- Preflow before the round
- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.
- Second rebuttal should frontline responses from first rebuttal. I probably won't accept new frontlines in second summary.
- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.
- While conceded turns are 100% true, they must be explained, implicated, and weighed properly. Failure to do so will probably mean that I won't evaluate them. With that being said, please limit the amount of disads you read, no matter how well they are implicated, I probably won't evaluate more than 3.
- I'm fine with teams reading defense to kick out of turns but it has to be done in the subsequent speech.
- I'm generally tech over truth. I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, I will always default to warranted analytics over unwarranted evidence that has a carded statistic. While this may be true, keep in mind that I won't accept blippy or nonexistent warrants as it is far too easy for teams to get away with.
- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.
- In the rare event that I am forced to, I don't have a set rule as to who I default to (I'm kind of torn between defaulting neg or defaulting first speaking team), so I'll have to intervene somewhere on the flow. PLEASE convince me otherwise as I'd gladly appreciate it.
Things I Like:
-Weighing is super important for everyone and I'm no different. It helps me evaluate the round more easily and it prevents me from making a terrible decision which will probably make you unhappy. With that being said, you probably should meet these standards if you want me to buy your weighing.
A. It has to be comparative. Please don't reiterate the same impact ev over and over again.
B. Please metaweigh. This makes my job much easier, since I definitely don't want to have to intervene when it comes to things like urgency versus magnitude. You don't have to metaweigh if you're going for a prereq due to the fact that it is the highest form of weighing and I will always evaluate it first.
C. It should be started as early as rebuttal. I'll buy weighing in both summaries but its better if its set up earlier in round. I probably won't evaluate weighing in FF unless no other weighing is done throughout the rest of the round (This only applies to 1st FF, I won't evaluate any new analysis in 2nd FF).
- Consistency between summary and final focus (Ik this is kind of overused). A lot of teams like to use the extra minute of summary to do a lot of stuff but I'd prefer if summary collapses on the things that final focus would go for and spends most of the time on weighing instead of unnecessary frontlining or defense. (If you know what I mean)
Things I Don't Like:
- Speed: I've always been quite bad at flowing so the faster you go, the more likely you are to lose me. I'm not a huge fan of speech docs because it allows teams to fit extra content into a doc that they never probably go for in a "normal" round, but I will still evaluate them.
With that being said, I prefer the round to progress at a moderate or normal PF pace.
- Going new in the 2. Please don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks.
- When teams try to hide links and etc in case and blow it up in the later half of the round when it doesn't get responded to. At the end of the day, I will still vote for conceded offense but I'd prefer if teams don't do this because its not very fair.
- Progressive Argumentation (Theory, K's, etc): I'm extremely confused by all forms of progressive argumentation so I'm probably not the best person to read these arguments to. That being said, I am open to evaluating these kinds of arguments if they are explained very well. Although I'm open to these arguments, please don't read Theory on novices or those who are unfamiliar with it.
- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive the lowest possible speaks and the L. If possible I will also talk to tab as such behavior should not be permitted at any tournament.
I did PF.
Don't read off-time roadmaps. Odds are, you won't follow them anyway. Just tell me where you're starting and signpost.
I will always evaluate the framework first and then look towards who best provides offense under the framework.
I will likely only vote on an argument if it’s present in both summary and final focus. That means extending BOTH the warrant and the impacts of the argument. “Extend the Smith evidence” by itself with no analysis as to what the evidence is actually about isn’t an extension. And saying "we save X amount of people" without the warranting as to how/why isn't extending an argument either. I won’t vote on blippy extensions. Please do not spread, at all ever, especially not in the morning.
Second rebuttal NEEDS to respond to turns. Second summary is too late.
Weigh. If neither of the teams weigh, I’ll be forced to intervene and determine what I think is more important which you might not necessarily agree with in the end.
I will vote on theory or Ks if they are thoroughly explained and warranted. However, I believe that both of these should be used as a check back on either an egregious abuse instance in the round or within the resolution itself. Senseless use of theory or a K just to waste time or to limit your opponent's ability to debate will result in less speaker points and depending on how I see it in the round might even cost you the win. I won't buy disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory or any other foolish new theory.
If someone calls for a piece of evidence, please give it to them quickly.
Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate. I will just drop you if you’re offensive.
If you have any questions, ask before the round.
My name is Daniel (he/him/his) and I competed in Public Forum for six years. I debated at the Institute for Collaborative Education and then at Poly Prep. I'm open to all styles, but I prefer narrative debate: slow speeches with minimal jargon that tell a story. I have also been out of debate for a couple years now, so just keep in mind that I may not be up to date on the meta.
Good luck, and don't forget to have fun! You can find specific preferences below.
I believe that Public Forum teams should disclose. I will not penalize teams that don't disclose, but I will reward teams that do with a 1 point speaker boost – just let me know your that stuff is on the wiki before the round starts. If you do disclose and then remove it from the wiki, I'll be very unhappy You can find the link to the wiki here, as well as a guide to putting your cases on the wiki here and a handy video I made here.
Weighing is the easiest way to win debates so start weighing early, bring it up often, and develop it throughout the round. Don't just make arguments; explain why, even if your opponent's arguments have some merit, your arguments matter more.
Use magnitude, scope, timeframe, prerequisite, and link-ins as weighing, not probability: weighing is valuable because it allows you to win the debate by only winning your offense and demonstrating why that offense matters more than opponent's offense, even if their offense has merit. Weighing mechanisms like "probability, strength of link, or risk of impact" assume that your opponent's arguments aren't true, placing the burden on you to disprove their arguments and defeating the strategic value of weighing. If you say, "our recessions arguments outweighs their nuclear war argument on probability," you've conceded that nuclear war outweighs recessions in every way other than probability, meaning your opponents can win the round simply by winning nuclear war. Don't make me vote on probability weighing because you may not be pleased with the outcome.
Novel and counterintuitive arguments can be great! However, if you run something funky, I'll expect that you put in the work to persuade me. I'll try to be open-minded, but I acknowledge that I enter the round with biases and that I'll have a harder time buying an argument that seems far-fetched.
Should the 2nd rebuttal include frontlining?
I'd prefer so, but don't worry if you don't get to it. The more times you make an argument, the more likely it is to persuade me; it will stick more my head and (hopefully) it will be more fleshed out.
Should the summaries extend defense?
Yes. If you want defense in final focus, you must extend that through summary. Three minutes is enough time for summary speakers to extend defense.
Progressive arguments, critical arguments, and theory?
Go for it! Just know that I (and most likely your opponents) have no experience with them, so I expect you to argue them well and in a way that everyone in the round can understand.
Clarity is more important to me than speed.
Please weigh. It makes everyone's lives easier. Just do it.
Don't extend through ink. I won't flow it.
Warrant your arguments well.
Don't be rude or insensitive. Humor and puns are always welcome and will probably boost your speaks if it's actually funny.
Don't misconstrue evidence.
I won't call for evidence unless it will affect my decision or a team tells me to call for it.
Clear and accurate signposting will also result in higher speaks and will make the round so much easier to follow. Signpost. Do it.
I want a good, cohesive, narrative. Collapse. Don't go for the entire flow. Condense the round and give me voters.
How to get good speaks
Effective weighing and organization are the easiest way to boost your speaks.
I am of Black ancestry. I am Black.
I debated for Campbell Hall for four years. Tech, tabula rasa, all that jazz. Debate however you feel most comfortable.
Absent any in-round argumentation, I will default to these norms:
- 2nd rebuttal should frontline all offense
- 1st summary only needs to extend defense if 2nd rebuttal frontlined that piece of defense
- Offense in final focus needs to be in summary
- Accept defense to kick out of turns in the next speech
- Crossfire is binding
- Paraphrasing is fine
- Default util
- Default neg
- Evidence must have author name and date
- I will ONLY call for evidence if a debater EXPLICITLY tells me to
I dislike spreading and treat me lay if you read progressive arguments.
Feel free to message me on Facebook or email email@example.com
I did Public Forum debate at St. John’s in Houston, TX for four years. If you have any questions about anything written here, please feel free to ask before the round!
In any debate, the most important thing is weighing. Particularly in close rounds, explaining why your impacts should be prioritized over others is critical to helping me determine who won. If you do not weigh, I will be forced to intervene and you may not like how that intervention plays out.
In order to have an argument, you must extend at minimum a warrant and an impact.
(i.e. if you tell me the sky is green and the other team does not respond to it, the sky is green) Having said that, outlandish arguments will have a very low threshold for a good response. In that example, simply mentioning the sky is not green would be a sufficient response to win the argument. You do have to interact with every argument, no matter how outlandish, however.
1. An argument you go for (i.e. want me to vote for) should have a warrant and impact extended in both summary and final focus.
2. I did not run progressive arguments (Ks, Theory, CPs) during my debate career. Generally, I do not think progressive argumentation belongs in PF as it increases the barrier to entry of the event. I may not know how to interpret such arguments in the context of a PF round. If you choose to run them, you do so at your own peril. I am not very receptive to theory unless there is actual in-round abuse.
3.Offense not responded to after second rebuttal is conceded and must be weighed against (excepting turns/other offense read in second rebuttal).
4. With a 3-minute summary, defense should ideally be extended in summary where possible.
yo im sebastian and i go to lake highland prep, here's my paradigm:
im fine with speed, dont spread.
dont be homophobic, racist, sexist, islamophobic, ableist, etc, i will drop you without hesitation.
don't run theory's and k's, unless you wanna get dropped.
in summary, collapse on one argument (extend link + impact) and frontline (don't just extend author names, i care ab the warrant) also SIGNPOST!
COMPARATIVE WEIGHING (this is really important to me, don't just talk ab your impact also address the opponents' impact)+ EXTEND WEIGHING
for turns, i won't feel comfortable voting on a turn if its not impacted and weighed (also frontline their responses)
if something is not in summary and ff, i wont vote for it
please have your cards ready so we dont waste time.
if you have any questions, fb message me
Add me to the evidence chain at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please put useful info about the round in the subject of the email. I self-identify as a progressive tabula rasa flow judge, although I am now so old, I am a parent as well.
TLDR: Tech > Truth, Line-by-Line good, Signposting good, writing my ballot good, progressive good.
Flashing docs: I expect you to know how to flash or email docs in a timely fashion. Lack of crispness in this exercise reflects poorly on you. ADDENDUM: In this new Zoom era, please have a link to your case and every card in your case ready to get posted. Let's not spend a lot of time screwing around swapping evidence.
Tech > Truth. Underdeveloped or ridiculous arguments are hard to vote on (low bar for !truth), but I try to flow and vote on things said in the round. I have built up some dispositional bias that leads me to believe that environmental destruction, nuclear war, racism, sexism, and homophobia are all bad. Death is bad.
Speed hasn’t been a problem even though I am old now. I will clear you if I feel the need. What my history doesn't indicate is 4 years of competitive national circuit policy debate with many years of coaching and judging sporadically since then. I like a speech doc as much as anybody, but I feel like it is symptomatic of intellectual laziness on my part or poor judge adaptation on your part if I rely on it. I should be able to understand and flow what you are saying, right? But I do like to spell an author's name correctly when flowing citations.
Theory and T are fine. I am probably a bit out of touch with modern CP theory, so make sure you are clear (aff and neg) on your advocacy so I can follow. I am familiar-ish with K. I am not up to speed on my Kant or Heidegger or whatever. You will need to make sure your argument is extremely clear. Frivolous theory or tricks seem easy to vote against, but you are welcome to try your luck.
I sometimes judge Novice and JV rounds. If I had to identify the thing I have enjoyed the least in these rounds, it would be the technical lack of proficiency most commonly expressed through the cliche “two ships passing in the night”. Good flowing leads to good line-by-line. Good line-by-line leads to a good story. Write my ballot for me. If any of this is unclear, make sure you ask before the round.
I will generally only read cards after the round if you tell me I should.
If this is a novice round or JV, if you show me a good flow after the round, I will bump your speaks. Numbering arguments is a best practice I encourage.
A common pre-round question is how I feel about tag-team CX. If your partner is about to give away the farm, by all means jump in. If you have a question prior to your speech that you just really need to ask, jump in. Otherwise, why not just let the appropriate people interact in the usual way? Do you enjoy CX that much? Also, I'm probably not listening.
This is an educational activity and I don't like a hostile environment.
Everything above still applies. If it is in Final Focus, it was in summary, right? People ask me if defense is sticky and my response is that if you want to do stuff in the Final Focus, it should be in summary, but you can extend dropped arguments very, very quickly. I don't need you to do line-by-line, card-by-card extension in summary. You can tell the story in final focus.
I expect, starting in rebuttals, people to answer arguments in prior speeches. I know this makes the 2nd Rebuttal hard, but I believe in you.
I see people saying they will bump speaks if you read cards instead of paraphrasing. I am on the train: If you show me before the round that you are reading carded constructives, I will bump your speaks. Paraphrasing may have started as an attempt to increase persuasion, but I feel like it devolves to blippy args. I am considering transitioning to "paraphrase = lower speaks". Would love to discuss.
I find that with the volume of paraphrasing, people can blur through tags and authors. Please be articulate on the tag and author so I know what you want me to flow. In policy, I feel like I have the time they spend reading the card to write down the tag and author and the tag/citation/card model makes it easy to differentiate between tags and cards. PF seems to be somewhat sub-optimized for flowing by blurring the tag and content via paraphrase. Crazy! I assume you want me to flow a tag and author if you go to the trouble to say something, but I probably can't write as fast as you read. Help me help you. After judging several rounds at a recent tournament where I had a problem, let me say this: If your 1st constructive is paraphrased and has more than 20 citations, you are probably over paraphrasing and/or going too fast. I write down your citations. I have seen multiple instances where cases or arguments are so heavily paraphrased that there are two or more citations in a single sentence. I will not be able to write down your argument if you are expecting me to write down two arguments and two citations in a single sentence. And it is probably abusive to the other team. This is a real opinion. If you think this is an unfair standard, I would love to discuss.
Progressive PF is fine.
And I just want to say, for whoever happens to be reading this: It's strange to me that a judge would say that they don't like theory or progressive arguments. I understand if you say you have a bias against tricks, but if people can't feel comfortable making an argument about abuse in round in front of you, that opens the door for off-topic advocacy. Why would we want that? Policy debaters didn't have theory day one, theory evolved to check abuse. I get that people may not have experience with theory, but close-mindedness and a pre-conceived idea of what is acceptable seems super meh and interventionist. Just putting it out there as a check against all the judges that try to actively discourage theory, which I dislike. Happy to advocate for theory before or after round if people want to shoot the breeze.
I have more opinions, just ask.
hii im aliza and i go to lake highland prep:) here's my paradigm:
im fine with speed, but don't spread bc i wont be able to follow.
don't be rude in cross or at all in the round, it's meant to be fun! (dont be homophobic, racist, sexist, islamophobic, ableist, etc.)
don't run theory's and k's im not comfortable with them
in summary, collapse on one argument (extend link + impact) and frontline (don't just extend author names, i care ab the warrant) also SIGNPOST!
COMPARATIVE WEIGHING (this is really important to me, don't just talk ab your impact also address the opponents' impact)+ EXTEND WEIGHING
for turns, i won't feel comfortable voting on a turn if its not impacted and weighed (also frontline their responses)
if something is not in summary and ff, i wont vote for it
also don't take forever to find cards please + don't hog prep
if you have any questions, fb message me
I prefer teams email me their speech document to email@example.com before the round starts. And if possible send me your initial flow - this will help me to keep track of your arugments.
Please time yourself. I wont keep track of the crossfires. Tell me what is the priority to weight and why your impact is bigger.
Keeping your arguments simple and logical. I can easily get lost if you talk too fast or provide me tons of information.
Please be calm and polite. When you getting hostile to your opponent, I will think you lose control because you know you fail the round.
I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.
I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.
Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.
As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:
(1) I think the topic should be debated.
(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.
(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.
Strake Jesuit '20 / Duke '24
I did PF for four years in the TFA (TX) and on the National Circuit. I won TFA state and qualified for the TOC twice.
- Warrants and signposting are very important
- I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact
- Defense in summary and you can read defense against your own case
- Be clear if you are conceding defense
- 100% conceded=100% true
- Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse in summary
- Clean link > weighing
- I don't like calling for cards
- Impact turns need a link
- Implicate your offense and clearly tell me why you are winning the round (write my rfd)
- Merited theory is fine. My defaults are CI>Reasonability and RVIs good. I am comfortable with framework debate, K's, and basic tricks. If multiple progressive args are read you need to tell me which offense is prioritized
- I will disclose and I'm fine w/ questions
Email chain is good for evidence exchange. I do not want to wait 30 extra minutes for evidence exchanges.
I did PF for three years on the circuit with Timber Creek High School. I'm a flow judge. I'm okay with you talking relatively fast as long as you're speaking clearly. Please don't spread.
Here are a few things I give a lot of importance to in round:
Legitimacy of your cards: I'm not going to vote off of any card that isn't saying what you claim it to be saying
Weighing: I need to hear weighing of impacts in the round because if a round is left where both teams still have offense, I'm forced to make that decision on my own
I don't flow crossfire so if something important is said in crossfire please bring it up again in the speeches. Otherwise, just be kind and professional.
I did public forum for 4 years in high school and now I'm a coach. My paradigm is pretty simple:
The most important thing is that I will always choose the easiest/cleanest path to the ballot.
Terminal defense does NOT have to be in first summary.
I like weighing. Judging is super hard when I have a bunch of arguments on both sides with no way to analyze them and if I'm feeling rushed I might analyze them wrong on my own. So do it for me.
Don't trust my facial expressions. You can say the best argument I've ever heard and I'll still look bored.
Don't be rude in round. I know the difference between aggressive and mean, and I'm not afraid to dock points if I see the latter.
If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.
PLEASE EITHER STRIKE ME OR JUST DON'T RUN THEORY OR K IF I'M JUDGING YOU.
I debated on the national circuit at Nova High School for four years. I go with the flow. Please do not spread. I will only vote off impacts that are well warranted. Weigh arguments to make my decision easier (effective weighing will get you a bump in speaker points). Have fun and be civil :). You can win the round while being nice. Rude debaters will have their speaker points dropped and offensive debaters will have that and lose the round.
Please preflow before the tech check.
Judging philosophy specifics:
I am not familiar with theory so please do not read it unless an egregious violation has occurred in the round.
2nd Rebuttal: Should respond to turns presented in 1st rebuttal.
1st Summary: Doesn't need to extend terminal defense that hasn't been responded to.
Final Focuses: Any offense gone for in FF must have been in summary.
Crossfires: I do not listen to them. If a concession is made, it must be brought up in a speech for me to consider it as something to vote off of.
If you have additional question feel free to ask me.
I debated for Lake Highland Prep for 5 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior year.
tldr; warrant, weigh, i don't shake hands, make me laugh, NO 3FF's, yes you can flip before i get there
~I evaluate arguments on the flow!
~I am a tabula rasa judge; which is fancy for I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. buttt if an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. i do not like progressive debate, sorry not sorry, i won't evaluate theory/K's or whatever. if there is a serious abuse just say it in your speech for a couple of sentences,,,warrant it, explain the abuse, and i will evaluate. you don't need to make a whole shell about it or whatever theory is idk.
~Speed is fine but don't spread please!
~If there is no offense in the round, I presume ~first speaker~ by default, not neg. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.
~I go on twitter during cross lol but if it's that important say it in speech
~I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.
~No new evidence in second summary (it's fine in first summary). The only exception is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine!
~Defense doesn't have to be in first summary, but i encourage it if it's important. First summary must extend turns/any offense! (This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal) Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense!!
~I think calling for ev after round is pretty interventionist lol,,, but if you really reallyyyy need me to see it i guess i'll look at it
~keep your own prep
~I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language. oh and being rude/sexist/racist/homophobic etc.
~If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, read a trigger warning please!! debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.
~It's so boring and awk when card exchanges take a long time, they should take no longer than 2 minutes. If it takes too long I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time.
~Please remember to check the pronouns provided by tab!! This is so everyone is comfortable in the round and to prevent misgendering.
~Have a Big Time Rush! after all, debate should be fun! wear what you want, sit or stand, idrc! please lmk if there's anything i can do to make you more comfortable in round. Oh! and if you are funny + nice, I'll give you very generous speaks, unless you're a really bad speaker
if you have questions, message me on facebook & i'll probably respond in time!
Shoutout to Max Wu bc most of this is from his paradigm!!
I debated for four years on the national circuit.
My paradigm breaks down quite simply:
1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.
2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.
3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).
The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.
With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.
And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.
If any individual in the round would prefer these rules not be applied, let me know at the start and I'll waive them for the round, no questions asked.
1. Effective use of Kanye West and/or Frank Ocean lyrics will be rewarded with a bump in speaker points ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 points.
2. I will be enforcing the #WORLDSTAR section of Hebron Daniel's paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Hebron&search_last=Daniel
Have fun, and best of luck! Seriously. Have fun. Otherwise it's not worth it.
I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.
All the best!
when you say "turn," if you spin around, smash your head on the desk, throw your computer against the wall and run out of the room, i will give you 28 speaks.
hi im nithya, i go to lhp
- signpost, warrant, weigh (collapse on one arg)
- dont spread, speed is ok
- dont read theory/k's (im not comfy with them)
- dont be homophobic, sexist, racist, ablest, etc
- rebuttal: frontline offense if ur second
- summary: dont bring up new ev/responses
- ff: tell me why u won the round
msg me on fb if u have any questions!
A lay judge who's been judging for a few years now, I'm not a big fan of frameworks and I absolutely do not do Theory.
I debated for Acton-Boxborough for four years on the national/local circuit.
I consider myself a "mostly flow" judge because I can flow but I have a hard time doing so when the debate gets fast. Please speak at a moderate speed.
Just a few notes:
1. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing. If you're going too fast for me, I will let you know after the speech and ask you for the speech document.
2. I prefer good warranting and well-explained responses over fast and efficient rebuttals, and this will weigh somewhat in my speaker point calculations. Similarly, I am more likely to vote on the argument that has been explained well throughout the round than a turn you didn't really warrant or weigh in rebuttal that you blow up in final focus. So, if you read a turn for ten seconds in rebuttal about how X leads to economic decline and then in summary it becomes a recession and final focus it becomes 900 million people in poverty, I will still only evaluate what you said in the rebuttal - i.e. some vague decline in economic activity.
3. Your speaks will also depend a lot on the way you speak and how convincing you are. Persuasiveness is subjective but so is debate in general, and I think "public forum debate" is supposed to value speaking ability as well.
4. Crossfire is binding.
5. 2nd Rebuttal must frontline turns; otherwise, they are dropped. I also am not a fan of disads in EITHER first or second rebuttal, but you can probably trick me into thinking a disad is a turn in first rebuttal, as long as it is somewhat responsive to the opponent's case.
6. I won't call for evidence unless if it is challenged. Moreover, if I think the evidence indicts itself later on in the pdf, I will ask you about the indict just in case you have that indict frontlined - I believe that specific warranting is more important, and I understand that not all evidence is perfect and that some teams often have frontlines prepared to their evidence.
7. I think weighing is very powerful, but I have a high threshold for it. Weighing with cards/quantifications is better, and no new weighing allowed in final focus. However, weighing is sticky, so if first or second rebuttal establishes weighing that is dropped in first or second summary, then that can be extended into the final focus.
8. I am not familiar with progressive arguments. Running them in front of me is risky, but if you're feeling lucky you could try.
Have fun! This is an special part of your life. Cherish it.
No new cards in second summary because as K Dot said, "Your rebuttal a little too late" (but you don't necessarily have to frontline in second rebuttal, only if you think it will be advantageous).
Jokes, puns, and references to hip-hop or popular shows Rick and Morty, Breaking Bad, American Vandal, Master of None, or The Office will be rewarded.
If for some reason this does not give you enough information about how I evaluate rounds, feel free to ask me in round!
Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending Duke Uni. I use she/her pronouns. I'm a flay judge with an emphasis on the fl (I really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.).
QUICK NOTE- i live in the UK so im 5 hours ahead of EST (8 hours ahead of PST) and if i'm judging after 8PM EST, i might be kind of tired but i'll do my best!! just so ur aware
Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!
Yooo also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3
Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc
Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.
Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:
1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case. Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.
2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.
Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters
Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)
If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing
i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.
4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.
As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.
5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.
Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)
6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat
IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation
You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?
ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS
I'm really uncomfortable voting off friv theory, especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so I'll usually not do that, make sure you're both ok with it. If there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of smth u think is important, prog args are fine. I never ran Ks/ theory, but I get them at their basic level, so please explain well if you read them. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.
i dont like tricks much
I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.
If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.
Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.
I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise
Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.
Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.
Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.
I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.
I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.
I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.
calling me "judge" is annoying
Please send me a speech doc @ firstname.lastname@example.org if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.
I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.
Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!
I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you
- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")
- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)
- Reference Beyond Resolved
- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.
- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal
- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine
- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ KATE BUSH (JSDSFNVSKFNDS I LOVE HERRR)
- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.
- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case
- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?
Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.
I will take off speaks (-.1) for
- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)
- If our star signs are incompatible
- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.
I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!
Hello! I'm a senior at Edina and compete under Edina MZ.
tldr: Normal tech judge. Collapse + weigh + be a good person and you'll be fine. As a judge my obligation is to maintain a safe + educational space for everyone in the round. Debaters put too much stress on themselves so pls have some fun in my round.
If you have any questions about my paradigm, don't hesitate to ask before the round!
- If you need any accommodations, I'm happy to help out! If reaching out to me personally is better for you, Facebook message me (Arjun Maheshwari) or email me (email@example.com)
- Please signpost
- Please weigh
- Spreading is fine but don't exclude your opponent + send speech docs. Slow down to "PF speed" on analytics and tags
- Put me on the email chain (email above)
- Run what you want. Don't run problematic arguments--you'll get the L + 0 speaks.
- Read content warnings for triggering arguments, preferably via an anonymous form that can be filled out by all participants before the round. If there are any objections to you reading the argument, have another case/rebuttal ready to go.
- Defense is not sticky--any defense not extended in summary will not be evaluated in FF
- Extend cards and the argument
- Debate is a stressful activity, so I give high speaks to try to compensate. That is, unless you're rude or problematic. Then I'll give you really, really low speaks.
- Real world impacts in the round matter more than arguments on the flow. If you feel harmed in the round by your opponents' rhetoric, first of all, I'm sorry that this has been a bad experience for you. Second of all, point it out and it's now a huge voting issue. If you need the round to stop, communicate that to me and we'll take it from there.
- If you're paraphrasing, you need to have the card ready at moment's notice for your opponents or me to call
- If I call a card, give me both a) the paraphrase of what you read and b) the cut card. When you give me the paraphrase of what you read, don't try to change up what you've written up before -- if it's disingenuously portrayed, expect my ballot to reflect that.
- Weighing guides my ballot--win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first
- Metaweighing is important but like everything else it needs to be well warranted. Most of the time the weighing debate can be won without having to metaweigh.
Do not exclude your opponent. If you feel excluded by the argument, try to articulate how you've been excluded in the round.
If you run progressive arguments commonly seen in PF, I'll know it pretty well. If not, still read the argument, but don't expect me to know the lit base so spend a lot of time on warranting. Please don't spread if you're running these arguments so that I can catch everything.
- If you want to read theory/T about something that transpired in the round but don't know the formal format, still run it even if it's in paragraph form. Try to have the basic idea of a shell, so: a) interpretation (your interpretation of debate), b) violation (what your opponents did to violate that interpretation of debate), c) standards (why your interpretation is a good model for debate), and d) voters (the in-round implications for the violation. ex: drop the debater or drop the argument).
- For some reason this has been an issue in the past, but I'll clarify that no RVIs only applies to offense trying to be generated from the original shell--counterinteprs don't apply
- I have a strong bias against friv theory and tricks. It's terrible for debate and it's gna be hard to convince me otherwise.
Hi, I did Public Forum debate for four years at Lake Mary Prep in Orlando, Florida.
Some things I like:
Warrants and lines of logic over evidence that is unwarranted
Weighing, the earlier the better
Front-lining in Second Rebuttal. You don't have to do this but I think it is a good idea
Collapsing ***** 3 min summary does not mean go for more, just COLLAPSE BETTER *****
My coach always used to say "50% fewer arguments and 100% more analysis"
Some things I don't like:
Miscut Evidence. I am fine with paraphrasing but please make sure its an accurate representation of the evidence (I reserve the right to drop you if it is seriously misrepresented)
Blippy Arguments that are not weighed, warranted, or implicated
Theory / Ks unless there is a serious issue or abuse in the topic or the round. I am also really bad at understanding these, so you should probably strike me if this is your thing.
Any bigoted argument I will immediately drop you no questions asked.
To Summarize, In the poetic words of Ozan Ergrunor:
i begged you
I did PF.
Extend warranting through every speech. Group arguments and collapse on the good ones.
Please be respectful of the topics you discuss. Don't desensitize yourself to the impacts. You're talking about real people living in the real world.
Finally, be respectful of each other. I know everyone wants to win the round but it's not that deep.
Hi! My Name is Rhea Nandwani. I am a high schooler who currently does PF debate :)
Here's my paradigm:
- I can handle speed, but please do not spread. If you do spread, I can not promise I will get all of the things you say down.
- Please do not be rude or disrespectful in round, especially in cross. Debate is meant to be fun!
- Please do you part to make debate a safe space for everyone; don't be sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, racist, ableist, etc.
- Please do not run ks or theory- I am not comfortable with them and won't vote off of them.
- Make sure everything you want me to vote on is in summary or final focus. Tell me why you are winning.
- I only feel comfortable voting on turns if they are implicated and weighed.
- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! Please make sure it is comparative, interact with the other team's weighing, and explain why yours is better.
- Please signpost in all speeches and give offtime roadmaps so I know where to flow.
- if you have any questions, feel free to email/fb message me. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Most importantly Have FUN! You'll do great. Best of luck!
*Also, if you include a Taylor Swift song or grey's anatomy reference in your speeches, your speaker points will be positively impacted :)
Any online tournament: email@example.com
Hey! Im a Junior and currently a second speaker for University School in Ohio. This year we qualified to gold TOC and had decent success on the circuit.
Some general things I believe about debate
1. Tech > Truth: Debate is a game and arguments do not have to be true in the real world to win the round.
2. Weighing: I love weighing & meta weighing. I think stock weighing is always important, but strategic link in and pre-req weighing is awesome. Teams often forget about weighing warrants/links but this is just as important if teams read diametrically opposed pieces of evidence. Framing is also a very under utilized tool that teams should use.
3. Turns: turns are cool, only if the have an impact and are weighed. I think super strategic when teams are willing to kick case and go for a turn.
4. DAs/ADV: I think DAs/ ADVs in rebuttal are cool. Just call it a DA/ADV not just a "turn" or "overview"
6. Speed: I think speed is fine, and can handle most speeds. I prefer if you send a speech doc b/c its online and I don't want to miss anything you say.
7. Frontlining: 2nd rebuttal should frontline & probably decide what they collapse on.
8. 2nd summary: Defense is not sticky: If defense is conceded by 1st speaking team, you should still extend it with the warrant.
10. Progressive Arguments: Im still learning K debate, I can understand basic Ks like Cap/Sec-anything else I will need a lot of explaining lol. Im not experienced in theory debate and its not my favorite-but I know how it functions.
11. Presumption: I presume neg unless told otherwise.
12. Extension: full case extensions are necessary including a terminalized impact in summary and F.F.
pls be kind :) online tournaments are primarily for fun and nobody should be offended after round.
Overall, Im a pretty stock flow judge- just do what you have to do to win the round.
what's good, debaters!
what has four letters,
occasionally has twelve letter,
always has six letter,
and never has 5 letters?
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. JK here is my actual paradigm: google document
I debated for three years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.
I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.
I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.
You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.
I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.
I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.
Things I Like:
Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.
I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.
Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.
I also believe that weighing comes in tiers. To quote Brian Zhu: “You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.”
I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.
Things I Do Not Like:
I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.
A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.
If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.
If you have any questions you can ask me before the round starts or message me on Facebook here.
I am a 4 year PF debater. Pretty much will do what a classic flow PF judge will do, and whatever you expect an east coast ex-debater to do. The big thing overall is please just be a good person and try to have fun. Don't be rude or disingenuous. At the same time, if you bring good energy you'll prob see some high speaks.
-You don't need to extend defense in first summary
-You don't have to frontline everything in second rebuttal, but doing so would probably be advantageous for you
-Weigh early and often. I hate when teams just throw out buzzwords (MAGNITUDE!), please do logical analysis and direct argument comparison.
-I place a large focus on the link level debate. Teams that tell a consistent and compelling link story are likely to win my ballot -- please don't extend impacts without a sufficient link.
-Heavy emphasis on warrants and logical analysis. For me, smart analytics + evidence will always beat just evidence. If you just have evidence and some assertions without good warranting, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on it
Things I don't like:
-Overviews in rebuttal that are essentially new contentions, especially in 2nd rebuttal. Even if you phrase it as an overview or disad, if it is functionally a new offensive argument I will be very hesitant to vote on it. I think they're abusive given that they come so late and the summary has so much to cover
-Moving advocacy: be consistent with your narrative. Don't change your link story or any warranting that is essential in the round in the later speeches
-When teams read small turns early on and blow them up late in the round because they haven't been responded to super cleanly. If the argument is a crucial voter, it should have a built up narrative throughout the round.
-Theory/Ks/Squirrely args: I will evaluate these arguments but I am not familiar with them and have not debated many of these rounds throughout my career --> it is quite likely I won't make the best decision if you decide to run these just because I am unsure how to properly evaluate.
Hi! I am a freshman at the University of South Florida and I debated for four years in PF at Nova High School.
Be respectful of everyone in the round always!
Signpost throughout speeches so I can easily flow.
Warranting is very important for every argument as well as clear links to the impact.
I'd prefer condensing in the final speeches and voters!
Summary and final focus should parallel.
Definitely weigh! Make the decision easy for me.
How I Make Decisions -
I'll vote on the cleanest path to ballot, that was extended throughout the round (links and impacts) but I would highly encourage you to do comparative weighing for me. I am a flow judge but it is your job to speak at a pace that I can understand so I'm not missing anything. Also, keep it lighthearted, being rude or disrespectful is not going to help you win the ballot.
Updated for February 2021.
Tabroom has the option to specify pronouns for a reason. If a debater specifies certain pronouns by which they identify in a live update, ensure you know them. I have ZERO tolerance for deliberate misgendering because it makes the round unsafe. If you object to this, strike me.
A note on content warnings: I have seen the proliferation of potentially triggering arguments being tagged with content warnings before rounds. This is great. If someone doesn't read such a warning, I would be extremely receptive to claims about why that should mean I drop the debater immediately. However, I notice the execution of such warnings leaves much to be desired in some cases. A good CW should have three components:
A. A clear indication of the general topic which will be discussed and whether it is graphic or not.
B. A google form wherein the competitors and judges in the round can anonymously indicate discomfort. Do not ask for someone to say whether the content is triggering or not aloud, it is extremely traumatizing and difficult for survivors of trauma to have to out themselves for the sake of your debate argument. Asking for this is immoral and at best will be met by me tanking your speaks and at worst lead to me dropping you immediately.
C. If someone does indicate discomfort, simply say you understand and will read a different argument. Do not pressure or guilt trip anyone for being unwilling to discuss these arguments. Regardless of how important these issues are to debate discourse, safety is definitely more important.
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
If there's any way I can make the round more accessible, feel free to email me before the round and I will do my best.
TL;DR: Tech>truth, first speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense unless it's frontlined by second speaking rebuttal, in which case you have to respond to frontlines if you wanna go for it in FF. Defense isn't terminal unless you tell me why.
Hello. I did PF for three years at Boca Raton High School ('17) and currently coach/judge circuit PF. I consider myself a relatively decent debater. I’ve been around the national circuit, so I’ve seen my fair share of debating.
I disclose, so if you have any questions about the round, be it the specifics of the flow or your performance as a speaker, feel free to ask me either during the disclosure or after the round if time permits on my part. If you have any questions about my paradigm or an RFD, feel free to ask before or after round (tournament permitting).
As for the paradigm:
1. Debate is a game (unless you compellingly argue otherwise in-round), call me tech>truth. I'll vote on any warranted argument insofar as it isn't unambiguously, maliciously offensive. In the latter case, you'll get an L0-20. I think intervention assassinates pedagogy and fairness because the round is decided by factors outside the control of debaters. To minimize intervention, I will presume the status quo in a scenario in a policy topic where: A. no one is accessing offense, or B. both teams are accessing offense without literally any analysis as to which args are more important. In short, I presume in pretty much any scenario where it is impossible for me to resolve the round without having to introduce any of my own analysis that wasn’t in it. DO NOT ABUSE THAT. I presume first on non-policy resolutions. On that note, I believe defense is NOT terminal unless you tell me it is and why. I presume defense is mitigatory by default. This ensures people don't lose the round on presumption because of one piece of mitigation that was dropped and lacked implication.
2. First speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense, unless that defense is covered in second rebuttal, in which case, it must be frontlined in first summary and extended if you intend to go for it in FF. Likewise, if you're second speaking and frontline in second rebuttal and your opponents drop the frontline in first summary, you can extend the frontline straight to final focus without mentioning it in summary. I do not require second rebuttal frontlining, but it is probably strategic to do. Beyond that, no new in the two. That includes new weighing in the 2FF. Regarding new applications of certain args, the way I handle them is that the part of the arg itself that was read before cannot be responded to if dropped. However, the new application can be responded to because it was never read before in the round and the other team had no way of knowing they needed to frontline. Too many teams keep pulling this super sus strat of reading entirely new applications of frontlines or defense to dropped args in the backhalf and reading entirely new implications that weren't in rebuttal. This is effectively a new argument because this articulation of the argument wasn't earlier in the round and the other team couldn't respond to it. There are two exceptions. Those are if 1FF is answering new arguments from second summary and/or if 2FF is refuting those answers. Second, if you're making a theoretical argument about some abuse committed late in the round. If it's the latter, you better spend a VERY significant chunk of your FF on the argument and warranting why the level of abuse is big enough to outweigh the fairness skew of an arg that is new in the two.
3. The only new frameworks that I feel comfortable with being introduced after summary, absent some argument telling me otherwise, are voters and reasons to prefer/weighing frameworks. Clarity of link weighing is fake news 99% of the time, I am not fooled by new attempts to read defense in FF.
4. Cool w/ progressive arguments if done properly and am tangentially familiar with stock K lit. I notice a lot of judges try to ascribe specific purposes to these types of args, like only being for checking back abuse. I think this is intervention. YOU decide and argue in round what the role of a progressive arg is and how that affects the round's outcome. Also, tell me why your args/standards are voters, especially for theory/T. Disclaimer: I have a college policy background, but a limited one, and I was also bad at it. If you're someone reading these types of args, I suggest dumbing them down by spending more time explaining/implicating them.
5. Good w/ speed but notify me if you're gonna outright spread so I can flow on laptop. Send speech docs if spreading or I will not be happy. Slow on tags/authors/analytics. I will clear you.
6. Issues in CX need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them.
7. If a link turn links to a different impact than the argument it's turning, that impact MUST be weighed for me to evaluate it because these types of arguments don't inherently prevent or hijack impacts, meaning it doesn't function as defense either. Treat it like an impact from case.
8. If a card is disputed throughout the round or has something in it that spikes/responds to another arg, please extend the card name in summary and FF for clarity and signposting.
9. Please warrant new cards/arguments in summary, don't just read a claim that only ever gets warranted in FF.
10. Please weigh because it makes the round clearer and easier for me to judge. Line-by-line is important, but weighing is absolutely necessary. Most teams I've judged haven't weighed, or done so poorly. Weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Arg interaction is key. Clarity of impact/link weighing is fake news 90% of the time just because people throw those buzzwords at me and just say “we outweigh because our arg is true.” Just saying you outweigh because you access an arg is not weighing. Strength of link is fine with very good COMPARATIVE warranting rather than being a poorly veiled attempt to read new defense in FF.
11. Absent being told otherwise, I default to evaluating the round on several levels. In descending order: framework, comparative weighing, weighing, offense access. I'm open to some theoretical alternative to evaluating the round if it's proposed to me, I.e. procedural args like theory coming first.
12. If you plan on conceding an arg for strategic purposes, I like that because it’s smart. That said, such can be abusive if used at a point where it is nigh impossible for the other team to respond. I do not wanna intervene on this issue, so: it is fair to make strategic concessions, but only in the speech immediately after those args are made. For example, if someone reads terminal link defense alongside a ton of link turns in first rebuttal, your concession should be in second rebuttal. I won’t take this into account by default. This only comes into play if you argue why it’s abusive. If this happens and you do not make an arg about it, I evaluate it normally. I am VERY receptive to theory arguments on this issue, even in the final focus if and ONLY IF the abuse in question happened right before it.
13. As an extension of the above, I don't enter the round with any preconceptions about certain args being abusive. There are no abusive args unless you: A. tell me why the arg is abusive (most people are blippy on this), and B. why that means I shouldn't evaluate them, preferably grounded by some standard like education or fairness (often entirely absent). Or you could read theory, which is fine by me.
14. I tend to evaluate evidence as arguments, unless some arg in round is made that I should eval them otherwise or there is REALLY excessive abuse. That means a few things:
A. Just as I only evaluate arguments as you present them to me, I only eval ev as you present it to me. This means that the claim you present from the ev is how I eval it, and if I call the card and see some other application of the ev that wasn't articulated in round, I'm not gonna consider it.
B. I prefer not to call for cards unless I am told to. In fact, I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to do evidence comparison myself. Please do it for me, it likely won't end well for you if it comes down to this. There are exceptions to this rule for cards I deem important enough to call, and I will admit that metric is somewhat arbitrary. I think, however, that most would agree that such arbitrariness is fine if it leads to accountability. If I call your ev due to an indict, and the specific parts of the ev in question are problematic, my default response is to just drop the ev to minimize intervention. This, of course, can change if your opponents make some argument as to why this should impact the outcome of the round. I also might just call cards for clarification.
C. The only occasion in which I drop a team with the lowest speaks tab will allow for misrepresenting ev is if it is REALLY terrible and malicious, and the abuse is obviously super extreme, i.e. fabricating ev, distortion, or obvious clipping. I haven't had to do this in a round I myself have judged yet, so my threshold for this is very high, don't be alarmed.
15. The Jan 2019 topic has taught me that there are some parts of economics that I do not understand. Explain economics to me in round like I'm five, for both our sakes.
16. I evaluate embedded clash to an extremely limited extent in the absence of analysis/implication in the round itself, and I only do this when it has to be done to resolve the round. My standard for evalling embedded clash is that if the analysis/extension you read is 100% there and just not signposted in its application or is on the wrong part of the flow, I eval it. By 100% there, I mean I could literally cut and paste that verbatim statement on to the arg it clashes with and have zero issue. If I can't literally just add the phrase "On this argument..." to the analysis/extension that's there, I won't eval embedded clash in the absence of analysis. PLEASE do the analysis properly, I hate evalling embedded clash and your speaks will suffer.
17. In terms of theory, I default to competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater, open to otherwise if argued in round. Likewise, if you read a theory shell instead of a PF-y argument about why a certain thing is abusive and shouldn't be evaluated, I will hold it to the standard of a theory shell. Extend the interp verbatim. The shell line-by-line doesn't need to be extended in rebuttal.
To me, speaks aren't about presentation. I tend to give speaks based on one's strategic decisionmaking and argumentation in the context of a round. Cool strategic moves and good efficiency (especially in the backhalf) are the key to my heart. I’m not a fan of giving speaks based off stylistic performance, mostly because those tend to be informed by some pretty bad norms that disadvantage non-cishet white men. If your strategy is good, I don’t care how you speak, I will give you good speaks.
Here’s the breakdown:
30: You made the best possible strategic decisions and arguments in the context of the round.
29-29.5: You made smart strategic decisions and arguments. Only a few things you could have done better.
28-28.5: Solid argumentation and middle of the line strategic decisionmaking. What I give to the majority of decent rounds I judge.
27-27.5: Passable argumentation with several mistakes, and a noticeable absence of strategic decisionmaking. Round was way more unclear than it should be, and improvements are definitely needed.
26-26.5: Below average. Major mistakes or problems with the debate, definitely needs immediate improvement.
25-25.5: Very below average. Completely mishandled the round. Significant work needed on how the debate is handled.
<25: You probably said something quite offensive or tried to spread cards without sending a speech doc.
Saratoga High ’20
Started circuit debate my junior year - I qualified to TOC, NCFL, NSDAs, and Cali States, and reached the TOC autoqual level at both NCFLs and Nats, my junior and senior year respectively.
Debate is a game, play to win.
Debate is an educational activity, play fair.
TLDR: Tech > Truth, please warrant args and do comparative analysis, I’ll vote for anything
Conflicts: Bethesda Chevy Chase GT, Centennial AV/NC, Basis Peoria, Acton FE, Lynbrook RG, Seven Lakes LW
- Just had my wisdom teeth removed so it's going to be hard for me to talk - I'll give an RFD but if you want feedback/advice beyond that, feel free to reach out over email/messenger, and it'll be a lot easier for me to respond
- Getting a 29+ from me at this tournament is super easy: 1. don't take more than 1:30 to pull up any given card your opponent calls for, 2. don't steal prep (I know this one is tough for PF teams), 3. don't interrupt someone in cross.
- For online debate: Please send docs for case and rebuttal if you are going fast or reading something that's not stock - my zoom/NSDA campus cuts out often. Feel free to turn off export options or unshare me right after, I have no desire to take your prep, I just don't want to mess up a decision because someone cut out.
- IF YOU WANT - skip grand cross and take it as 1:30 of prep. Gcx begs people to interrupt each other and bring up new responses or new wEiGHiNg to arguments. You can have it if you want - but know I'll probably be listening to Juice or Cudi rather than the yelling match going on.
What has four letters,
Never has five letters,
Occasionally has twelve letters, and
Sometimes has nine letters.
Now the juicy stuff:
- I will only intervene under two conditions: 1. If a team is skewed out of the round technically or accessibility is compromised. Keep debate safe and fun - read trigger warnings, send docs, etc (more on this below). 2. There is absolutely 0 weighing done - then I'll do my own impact calc because I really don't want to presume.
- If you haven't had me before: As a debater, my favorite judges on the circuit were Cale McCrary, Riley Shahar, John Nahas, Cara Day and Conrad Palor - This would have been my ideal 5 judge panel, and a lot of my paradigm is based on theirs, so I'll evaluate rounds most similarly to them.
- It's my job to adapt to you. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible and feel free to ask paradigm questions before round.
- Postround as hard as you feel like. I’ll continue the conversation for as long as you want (even after the tournament), unless I think it’s going in circles.
- Second rebuttal should frontline turns and respond to weighing. Otherwise, they are conceded, with full strength of link. Don't try some wand-waving in summary, it's a waste of your time. First summary only needs to respond to arguments that second rebuttal interacted with. (If second rebuttal doesn't respond to defense, you can backline it in first final focus). I'm willing to buy arguments that second rebuttal needs to FL everything.
- I will ALWAYS disclose my decision and give an RFD, whether the tournaments bans it or not (pls don't snitch on me). I used to hate it when I didn't get a decision/feedback, especially from flow judges, because it prevented me from making mid-tournament adjustments. I think not getting judges' feedback gives a significant advantage to schools who can have coaches watch the round, and I want to level the playing field. Feel free to message me on facebook during or after the topic if you have any questions or want feedback/advice.
- The only time I expect disclosure is if you read a pre-fiat argument with discourse as an impact. If you don't, it's not an auto-L, but disclosing is a way to show me that you are not commodifying my ballot. This also means I'm inclined to buy disclosure theory in this type of situation - I hate people running arguments like these just for ballots. I think it's great if you actually care, though, because debate can be used to bring awareness and force people to research/understand arguments they previously wouldn't have.
Come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done pls unless you have a paradigm question
| LINE BY LINE | SIGNPOST | EXTEND ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | HAVE FUN |
- Please extend your link story with warrants in the back half - one exception: if a certain part of your argument is conceded, I don't NEED that part. For example, if you read in case a warrant for nuclear war -> extinction, I don't need that warrant extended in the back-half if it's conceded. Remember, if it is conceded, I don't NEED this, but I'd prefer it. If your entire arg is conceded, I still need at the least the link and impact. Debate is about efficiently and persuasively articulating arguments - if you don't do that in the back-half I'll be hesistant to vote for you, and your speaks will take a hit.
- Cool with anyone speaking in cross, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved, ESPECIALLY in rounds with pre-fiat and apriori arguments.
- Please send a speech doc if its either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it won't help you when I get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS. I think speed is good for the activity, just try your best not to be exclusionary.
- Speaker Point boost for disclosing - I think disclosing is good but I also have a very high threshold for disclosure theory and paraphrase theory because I don't believe teams should be *forced* to disclose. That said, I do believe it is a good practice and it does put you at a disadvantage, so let me know before constructive that you disclose, and I'll add 1 pt to speaks.
- TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you lose and get 20s.
- For the second speaking team, no new final focus analysis is allowed unless it is responsive to new first final focus arguments.
- If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.
- DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of y’all accidentally do this anyway cause people don’t read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. However, let’s make sure these are all warranted and implicated. Remember, warrants make arguments, implications make responses. Also don't just read disads, sprinkle in some analytics. Like, if your rebuttal is “oN ThEiR CaSe - iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn FoUr Is..." then please abstain. I already said I’m cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in constructive. Let's make rebuttal somewhat responsive.
- Hidden arguments are fine as long as they have warrants.
- Summary - this is BY FAR the most important speech in the round. I know other judges are willing to do this, even some of the best, but I will not vote for a team with a second speaker that ghost extends stuff into final focus. I won’t do that. Please extend your arguments well in summary. I also find the warrants for defense and turns go away by summary for a lot of teams - my rule about not voting for unwarranted arguments still applies to these. Even if you are winning 5 pieces of conceded terminal defense, if a warrant isn't extended, then I won't buy any of the defense.
- sTrEnGtH oF LiNk meta weighing is the new "clarity of impact". I won't vote for it absent a very well developed warrant. Even if you do warrant it, I think it's stupid. This is pretty much a "trick" read by techy teams to skew another team out of the round. If someone reads it on you - here are 4 responses: 1. It destroys education because it encourages people to avoid impact calculus, which is key to real-world policymaking, 2. It also encourages people to extend tons of blippy defense through ink because frontlines are rarely terminal, as opposed to interacting with arguments, which is key to in-depth education, and 3. It discourages warranted link comparison, like historical precedent or uniqueness comparison, which is more applicable to the real world, and 4. If you win your argument, you also have 100 percent strength of link. Read these 4 responses and it'll probably take out the SoL metaweighing, if not serve as an independent reason to drop your opponents for setting bad norms (if you make this implication, obviously). I would absolutely love a team to drop if you win any of these. However, if you don't read these responses, I won't have any sympathy for you, because you should be reading paradigms before round.
There are two ways I can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isn’t needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. With that:
PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH. Comparative and INTERACTIVE weighing specifically.
Carded weighing and framing are great. Meta weighing is awesome. Link comparison is even better.
- Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Do impact calc, and actually responsive impact calc (not just scope, magnitude, reversibility, timeframe, etc). While I do appreciate this traditional weighing, I would obviously prefer interactive and comparative analysis - i.e. link-ins, pre-reqs, short-circuits. I'm inclined to reward good internal link debate.
- Just a piece of advice: disguise link turns here (i.e. if you are winning an Econ argument and you’ve conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war and why it outweighs on probability for example). This is also a great way to get back in the round if you drop something big. But also don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” - there’s a difference and I’ll catch it.
- Weighing that is not responded to in the next speech is conceded - that doesn’t mean you can’t do more analysis on it (i.e. linking into that weighing or reading a pre-req) but if the actual warrant on any weighing is dropped, it is conceded.
- "Probability" is not weighing on the impact level. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything you say is "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal. The only time that I’ll evaluate probability weighing is if it’s new comparative analysis done on the link level between multiple arguments that could not have come in rebuttal.
- Clarity of impact is not weighing unless you warrant why it is weighing (and there are ways to do this, ask me in round if you want) - but just saying that you have a number and your opponents don’t is a stupid way to look at debate, and encourages zero interaction and zero comparative analysis - I’m never going to vote on it absent a warrant. If you make a claim that your opponents don’t have impact contextualization, then sure, I’m more likely to vote for you, but pls pls pls don’t let cLaRiTy oF iMpAcT be your “weighing” in the round. Same thing with "uniqueness" weighing.
Do meta weighing and link weighing - if two teams both have links into an impact (which should happen in high-level rounds) - do link comparison. (Strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability). In my career I always HATED when judges intervened with their own thoughts about which warrant or link “made sense” - I’ve had this happen in super late elimination rounds at bid tournaments. If I’m in this scenario I will 100 percent not intervene - it is your fault for not giving me reasons for why your warrant is better even if everyone can agree it “makes more sense” - So, if everyone has extended warrants into the same argument and there is no terminal defense from either side, I’ll default to (in order):
- Which argument has less mitigatory defense (Strength of Link)
- If there's any empirics read on the argument
- Whoever is winning the uniqueness picture (since that makes it more likely that your link has a larger magnitude and greater SoL)
- I’ll prefer a carded link over an analytical link turn
- Remember, these are all easy ways to compare links, along with evidence comparison, that should be said in round, but if nobody says anything, this is how I’ll evaluate competing links.
TLDR: Default RVIs and reasonability, don't skew teams out of round with this
- I really hate teams being exclusionary with theory but here are my bright lines so there is something that is concrete - If a team is qualified to the GOLD TOC, they should be able to handle theory shells. If you are at a Round Robin, the same goes. If you are one round past the bid level at a tournament (i.e. sems at a quarters bid) go for it. Otherwise, I'd prefer if you didn't read theory, but if you must: go slow, no jargon, and paragraph form.
- If reading theory against a team that can handle it structure it properly and go as fast as you want. I’m cool with meta-theory. Do weighing between the shells.
- As a side note, if I’m on a panel, please only read your shell if all the judges can handle it. I hate teams reading theory and then getting the benefit of doubt from the judges that don’t know what they are doing. This also means I’m inclined to vote on a shell saying you can only read theory if judges all expressly say they can evaluate it.
- I default to RVIs unless told otherwise. Also, because theory is not a common argument, I default reasonability so that teams that are new to theory can respond to it like a regular argument. I will not drop a team if they responded to the shell adequately, but didn't know exactly what a "counterinterp" was. I'm more than down to default competing interps, but please (1) explain what they are for your opponents and (2) give me a WARRANT as to why.
THIS is IMPORTANT - If you read no RVI’s - I do NOT believe winning no RVIs turn your shell into no-risk offense. I've heard from people that this is a hot button issue in policy as well right now, and because theory is still relatively new to PF, norms for theory debates are still being set. My stance on this is pretty simple - I've had theory debates (especially back when I didn't understand theory as well) where the warrants for an RVI never actually held up to what the judges considered an "RVI". For example:
- I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.
- (Chilling effect could be responsive, but you need to explain why) You can also read defense to your own shell/standards to get out of it, I think conditionality is fine.
Basically, theory is always more exclusionary than substance, so if we use jargon, let's not conflate what that jargon means.
If responding to theory/you’re reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isn't an excuse to undercover it though.
- Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read and debated basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I won't change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. Once again, if you are hitting a team that doesn't understand it, please be extra slow. I just say I prefer util because I'm less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.
- I’m definitely chill with forms of epistemological/deontological weighing, I think these aren't read well by teams and are often underutilized.
- Tricks - just don't. If you are thinking about reading tricks with me in the back, you'll probably win substance anyway, so just do that, please. If you REALLY want to, tell your opponents 30 minutes before the round, and disclose the tricks if they ask.
- Speaks are subjective - If you are funny, chill and disclose and - you’ll prolly get a 29.5+.
- Be calm and slow, or dominant and assertive, I don't care - I'm happy to give great speaks to both if you execute properly.
- I know I have implicit biases, so I’ll do my best to counteract them while giving speaks.
- 30 speaks shell: Please don't read this. I think it’s read by predominately male teams and it further hurts womxn, gm’s, and minorities in the activity. As I said, I’ll try to prevent any action on my implicit biases but I won’t vote for this argument, because I do think this fosters exclusionary practices.
Formal clothes are stupid - pull up in whatever you want. Make the round chill.
CX: I don’t listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.
I don’t like calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses
-Two quick things-
I know you want to win and debate can get super heated and competitive. Trust me, I was never known for being nice in round. But at the end of the day, even if you can’t see it now, you are going to value this activity for the connections you’ve made and the people you meet, not for the nice trophy you get with a horse on top of it. Instead of making enemies with your opponents, try to be chill and create friendships.
I know lots of schools don’t have many resources or coaching. If you are in this boat - feel free to ask me for help/advice after round. I dealt with this for a while and I know, it sucks. We’ll never fully fix the inequities in debate but the least that I can do is try my best. :)
If you’ve gotten this far in my paradigm, I have quite a bit of respect for you. I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate, so I love people that read paradigms in their entirety. Let me know that you made it here before round, just pm me in the zoom chat, and you'll get a speaks boost.
Contact info: email@example.com or Yukiho Semimoto on fb messenger
tldr, flow judge that prioritizes non-intervention and accessibility.
the fun stuff:
1. If both teams agree, give me a paradigm that you like better and I'll judge based on it so long as I have the ability to (seriously, go weird, no limits so long as its not problematic)
2. If you ever feel unsafe at a tournament and need someone to talk to or a support system (e.g. you need someone to go to tab with you to report problematic instances), I am more than happy to be here for you
3. You can call a TKO in round and if it's correct you get a W30, if you're wrong an L25.
4. for every usage of the word off time road map i deduct speaks by .2, just give the road map u don't have to tell me ur giving it
5. You can curse if u want if it's not derogatory or aimed at anyone in the round.
6. Feel free to go wild. I didn't run crazy arguments as a debater but loved fun collapses (e.g. concede case go for turns) and fun extinction scenarios. Go crazy (don't mistake crazy for silly- just make my brain go, huh, that was smart). Win the round, and you win my ballot but do it with style and you'll win my heart (and a 30).
7. my speaks are based on how happy i was with ur speech
8. speed is good if ur clear, read my caveats on it below, but speed is not an excuse to be lazy at warranting
9. frontlining in second rebuttal is better, but second summary is fine.
8. I think 2nd rebuttal disads that are read without an implication are abusive, but I only drop speaks not the ballot, it's up to debate whether or not it's actually good or bad
9. clarity of link weighing and clarity of impact weighing isn't real, but again i won't intervene on the ballot just on speaks <3
10. my rules on extensions are based on a non intervening standpoint, if you forget to extend a uniqueness or a link warrant I don't care ballot wise until your opponents say something about it.
11. i default lost coin flip team and first speaking team
12. I don't listen in cross probably, but cross is strategic so if u don't use it and gcx i'll get sad
13. miscutting ev. is bad
14. If first ff extends a turn that was unextended in first summary and it's unresponded to, it counts as defense not offense i.e. a reason to not vote for your opponents but not a reason to vote for you.
SPECIFICS ON ACCESSIBILITY, THEORY, KRITIKS, EVIDENCE AND SPEED
*I prioritize safety in round.*
I am not afraid to drop debaters and speaks for violating the following rules: how I chose to penalize a team for violating a rule will depend on how severe the violation was.
a) Don't be racist, ableist, sexist, or discriminatory in any way shape or form.
b) Read content warnings for arguments that discuss sensitive topics (hi I will list sensitive topics here: e.g. forms of sexual harassment/ assault, gun violence, suicide). I believe that debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and the benefits of discussion no longer exists when the discussion at hand is a potentially triggering topic. The content warning should come in the form of "is everyone in this room comfortable with us reading an argument that discusses x topic (with description of how detailed you will go-- just a mention of the topic? descriptions of it?) ?" Because people might not want to disclose their traumas: I will ask that you send out your number/ google form so that everyone can explicitly consent to the debate (anonymously).
If you are confused about the series of topics that might require content warnings, and how to execute it properly, please feel free to ask before the round, before a speech, or before flipping for a particular side.
Respect your opponent's wishes. If they say no to your request to read an argument about a sensitive argument, it's a no. Not reading content warnings or not respecting the wishes of your opponents warrants an automatic loss and severely low speaks.
c) All people in the room MUST respect the pronouns that might be provided by tab. Blatant disregard for this will result in severely low speaks or even a loss.
I default dropping speaks most of the time, please make an argument to drop the debater for violating these rules if you want me to drop them.
LASTLY please let me know if you need anything! I am willing to accommodate the round-- take off your shoes, and I am absolutely okay with your partner maving the round if you do not feel safe in it. I am pretty sure NSDA allows a maximum of 2 rounds of maving at a bid tournament before being disqualified for breaks to begin with.
Speed is good for debate, you will be fine if you are PF fast, clear (this seems to be a problem in PF smoetimes), and not messy with the line by line and singposting.
warn me before the speech. I was on the faster side of debate, and I just need to know to flow on paper or computer.
If you are spreading/going fast, make sure that your opponents are okay with it. If you are spreading, send an email chain/ or flash your opponents and I *before* the speech. I don’t want to scroll through it during crossfire and I won’t.
I will only flow off the email chain/doc if your opponents are okay with it. Otherwise, if I miss something you say, I miss it.
*K's/ Theory/ Progressive arguments:*
I've had a tough time rewriting this part of the paradigm because I want to accommodate for both the regular PFer and as I've unfortunately learned the LD and CXers dabbling in PF. Read more than the bold if you plan to read these arguments.
If you don't know what prog arguments are, don't worry about this part of the paradigm.
If you do and want to run them, run them if you want so long as it is accessible to everyone in the round (including me). I am a strong believer that progressive arguments have a place in PF, but not in the way that they are currently read in LD and CX.
ask your opponents and me if they/I prefer paragraph or shell form theory and are okay with excessive jargon in K's. If no to the latter, ask what constitutes jargon to your opponents (and me). If you do not, be mindful that I will not explicitly stop you midround to tell you that you are running these arguments in an inaccessible way (unless you tell me that you want me to) because I usually wait to see if I can figure out jargon by the second half and do not think it is my role as a judge to interrupt the round. but I will be visibly upset if I believe that you are not adapting to me. While I have debated, ran and judged progressive arguments, my experience level is at a typical PF flow judge level. I enjoy most theory rounds and usually follow them just fine.
What I am not used to however, is flowing K debate/cases and policy-esque cases stuffed with big and strange phrases and card after card with very little implication after each card. This is not how I was trained to evaluate/flow debates, so long as you send a speech doc and not go fast while reading Kritiks, you will be fine (the caveat is I won't flow off of speech docs unless your opponents are ok with it). I also suggest reading simplified version of it with less jargon as I'm unfamiliar with popular Kritiks in Policy and LD.
I expect a progressive debate to be well- warranted and not just throwing around jargon- I think unlike other events PF has not progressed enough on progressive arguments as a norm for you to be doing that. e.g. Our argument is prefiat and always comes first, means nothing to me unless you explain what it means, words like reasonability need to be explained in the context of the round.
tldr strike me if you plan to go heavy into these arguments without a regard for accessibility.
Calling for evidence:
I A) encourage good evidence ethics-- PF ev ethics is atrocious and B) at the same time don’t really care for evidence bc pf ev often comes from random people with little qualifications on the topic. Unless the evidence is some objective fact about current events, analytics can be just as good as ev. And analytics +ev > evidence
I call for evidence if
A team asks me to
It’s impossible to make a decision without calling forr the evidence
I reserve the right to not evaluate a card if I find out it’s miscut and give you low speaks but I don’t default drop the debater until you explicitly make that argument.
The ruder you are, the lower your speaks are.
Yes, ask me/ message me after round if you want to know your speaks and you are scared about screws. Hopefully the answer isn't "I don't know yet!"
Don't run 30 speaks theory on me. I think there is no way to tell if you are not allowed to read this argument or respond in that way without being problematic (e.g. don’t force debaters to disclose their disabilities and identities to prove they’re allowed to read this argument) which puts me in an uncomfortable situation where I’m potentially allowing white cis non-disabled men to benefit off of an argument when they already do from the status quo. Just don’t read it— if the warranting is different you’re free to run it in the round and I won’t penalize you for it, I just might not buy it. If it’s the regular give everyone 30 speaks because speaks are racist and sexist and we should set norms I’ll lower your speech Everytime you extend it or only give your opponents the 30 speaks (esp if they present as a marginalized group)
I believe in the educational value of asking questions after round but do it respectfully. And only do it if we have time.
The moment you start postrounding to prove a point/ to prove that you should have won, that's when I will start to dock speaks.
My first line of my paradigm used to be don't shake my hand I probably won't enjoy your hands and this is just a reminder to future me to not forget to put it back up after in person tournaments resume.
If this still wasn't enough paradigms that I really like are David Kinane's (agree w/ everything except for the experience on progressive args) and Caspar Arbeeny (my coach). Ozan was also my coach but his paradigm is useless (sorry) but I share many views with him on debate if you knew him as a coach/debater.
If you believe that any part of my paradigm is unfair, please talk to me before the round and we can discuss how I can accommodate the paradigm to this specific round. This paradigm is a result of what I think my role as a judge and am always open to change in perspective.
I am a former Public Forum debater for Miami Beach Sr. High and competed in PF for four years with relative success.
As a Public Forum judge, I expect to evaluate a Public Forum round, not Policy or LD. If your strategy is contingent on card dumping and/or theory, I will do my best to evaluate it—and I won't hold it against you—but be warned that this is not my area of expertise and that on some level I will gravitate towards arguments I better understand.
If you expect to win on a particular argument/card, clearly say so. For best results, don't leave it up to me deciding on my own.
If the round is getting super messy/hard to follow, I tend to default to whoever is being the most truthful. Debates do not happen in a bubble insulated from reality, and I am NOT a tech > truth ideologue. That being said, if the other team is lying and you don't call them out on it there is only so much I can do as a judge.
If you tell me to call for a card in a speech I will; you may remind me at the end if I forget.
Try to be polite; I know debates can get heated but being rude does not make you sound more convincing. Calm and collected will win you points with me.
I'm pretty chill though let me know if you have questions :)
I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit from 2013-2017. This is my fourth year coaching for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina. I currently am a senior attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill majoring in Peace, War, and Defense with a concentration in international security and intelligence.
Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.
I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.
I will buy any argument and vote off of it. This includes kritiks and theory... Just warrant such arguments well.
I don't care if you paraphrase. Just don't misconstrue what your evidence actually says.
Split rebuttals are impressive/strategic but they are not necessary. Just make sure your first speaker frontlines effectively in summary. However, feel free to make their job easier and frontline for them in rebuttal.
My threshold for warranting arguments is very very high. If you are winning an argument in case or in rebuttal, clearly articulate the link chain of the argument when you are extending it. This does not mean shout random card names at me. Just walk me through the logical link chain of what you are extending.
I can flow at just about any speed
If you are going to speak quickly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. ie: "We are winning our 2nd response on their first contention, which is *insert well explained warrant* *insert well explained impact*." I also do not know all the names of authors in your case so tell me what authors say!! Do not just extend specific authors!!
I flow fairly quickly but if I do not know where you are you will likely see me scrambling to figure out what to do with my flow. You should pay attention if I do this because that means slow down or signpost better.
If you have an issue with your opponents evidence make it very clear to me in the round. You can do this in many ways. Examples include reading your opponents evidence out-loud during a speech, explaining how the evidence is misread, and/or telling me to call for the evidence post round.
I will not call for your evidence unless asked to call for something. In my opinion, calling for evidence without a reason is a form of judge intervention.
How to get 30 speaks:
Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.
I personally hate rounds that are way too serious and debaters are not questioning the analytical logic of each others arguments in an entertaining way. This does not mean turn the round into a joke but rather pretend like there is an audience on the zoom call/in the back of the room. This is generally a good strategy to seem perceptually dominate too.
Hi! I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I'm now a student at Duke University and coach PF at Durham Academy.
How I make decisions-
I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.
- Second rebuttal isn’t required to frontline but I do think it is really strategic to do so (especially turns).
- First summary doesn't need terminal defense (I guess you could say its ~sticky~ even though that word is gross).
- I think a lot of debaters give "flow" judges too much credit for knowing things. I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round. If your argument is still unclear to me after 4 speeches and 3 crossfires, thats your fault not mine. While I do coach and usually know the resolution well, please do not assume I know everything.
- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).
Progressive Args and Stuff-
- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents.
- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse. So running it to waste time, get a cheap win, or exclude your opponents from the debate will result in low speaks and possibly a loss if you annoy me enough. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.
- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a trigger/content warning before the round. Please work to maintain debate as a safe space and refrain from reading potentially triggering arguments if someone in the round asks you not to. If you have any questions as to what a content warning is, how to go about reading a content warning, or if you're unsure if you should read one- let me know before the round. I'm more than happy to help you! With that being said, I am very receptive to trigger warning theory if one is either not read or violated.
- This should really go without saying but- racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate. If I deem your behavior to be excessively rude, condescending, arrogant, or hateful, I reserve the right to intervene and drop you.
Hopefully this covered everything but if you still have questions after reading please feel free to ask before the round!
My debate philosophy mirrors that of a regular flow judge but there are a couple specific things you should probably know
1) I guess I'm tech over truth. It's pretty easy to just call your opponents out if they're making a false argument and if you give me pretty clear warranting as to why its untrue I'll buy it as defense.
2) I didn't go super fast when I debated, but speed is okay with me. With that being said, I'm not like a flowing god so if you go super quick I'll probably lose you, but don't worry I'll make it obvious or just yell "speed". also please signpost or else I'm gonna have no clue what's happening
3) I never ran progressive arguments, but a) I'll vote off of theory if it's well explained and actually deserving. i even buy theory in a paragraph format. also, don't just read theory to pick up a ballot; only read it if an actual abuse occurred, but if you just spread through a shell in front of an unsuspecting team that has no clue how to answer it or clearly doesn't know what's happening, im nuking your speaks. b) i have no experience with critical arguments (Ks), but again, if it's well explained and extended, i'll vote on it.
4) my threshold for extensions is kinda high. you need a link and an impact in both the summary and the final focus. also, you gotta extend warrants; not sure why people just seem to forget what those are from time to time.
5) don't go for everything just to flex; collapse and spend time weighing.
6) weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round. however, i will evaluate new 1st ff weighing
7) summary and final focus need to be cohesive; i'm not voting on stuff that was new in ff
8) first summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it was frontlined and its important defense; plus, you have three minutes it can't be that hard now
9) 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline offensive arguments on the case (i.e. turns, disads, etc.); any unresponded offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.
10) offensive overviews in general are probably bad for debate and you should not read them in front of me. if you read one in second rebuttal especially, my threshold for responses will be EXTREMELY low. also like 95% of the time you could just take parts from the overview and read as DAs or turns so it really isn't necessary
11) don't be annoying in cross; there's a clear line between being aggressive and being mean and if you cross that line you better win the round because your speaks are getting destroyed
12) i won't really feel the need to call for evidence unless its absolutely necessary or you tell me to call for it
13) don't hide behind evidence; if someone reads an analytical response that has a logical warrant behind it, it isn't enough to tell me to prefer you because you have some random author on your side, engage with your opponents and actually debate instead of screaming the names of research institutions back and forth
14) If neither side has any semblance of offense or risk of offense at the end of the round, i presume first speaker.
15) if you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. you are getting the L and your speaks will be nuked. it should go without saying to just not be a bad person
17) the last thing i'll say is that, while i will always have a special place in my heart for debate, i know that this activity is not the best sometimes and can be overly toxic and super stressful. i will try my hardest to try to make every debater comfortable and feel welcome and you should do the same for your opponents.
If you have any questions, feel free to message me on facebook.
I did PF for four years at Trinity Prep. I like consistency from Summary to Final Focus and believe that anything that you want me to vote for you on should be in both the summary and the final focus. I also think it is super important to respond to turns and extend turns that your opponents don't respond to.
i vote on anything
ask questions before round
keep your own time
I am a Hamilton High School (AZ) and Emory University alum. I debated in public forum in high school in the local and national circuit.
TLDR: Speed is fine but be clear, Warrants and Impacts are important so please extend them, Know your evidence and have your full cards ready, Don't be rude.
*For the medicare for all topic* ---- I am currently pursing a career in medicine and also currently work with patients everyday. I would say I have a pretty good understanding of how health insurance coverage and lack there of directly impacts patients and medical practices. I do not judge tabula rasa. With that in mind, please do not argue or state something that blatantly goes against humanism or makes no sense in a clinical setting. Even though the topic is on a bill and can be political, remember that patients are human and doctors actually care, regardless of what some random person in your evidence states.
I’m fine with speed as long as you are clear and audible and enunciate. Please do not spread. If you do choose to speak quickly, please go down the flow line by line or signpost. Even if you give an overview, signpost. If you're going to read your case quickly, slow down or pause before and after giving me taglines.
My decision is mostly based on what is said in the final focus. If you’re going for something in the final focus, you absolutely need to flow it through in your summary EXCEPT for defense from rebuttal. You should frontline if you have time.
When extending impacts/responses/cards, you need to extend at least one warrant with it or else it's not going on my flow. Do not extend through ink. Please weigh and tell me what I'm voting for.
I don't pay attention to crossfire. On the off chance that something important happens during cross, bring it up in later speeches for me to consider it.
I tend to focus a lot on evidence. If I end up calling for a card at the end of the round and I see that you've clipped it to help your side and your opponents didn't call you out on it, I'm still going to use the evidence against you. So, it's in your best interest to not to use sketchy cards; make sure you know what your evidence actually says. PLEASE DOWNLOAD FULL CARDS.
Some other things:
- I am by no means really good at or extremely informed in the history, polisci, or economics department, and possibly current events. This means that any background information that I need to know in order to understand your arguments needs to be addressed either in your case or at some point in the first half of the round. This is something that I think debaters should do anyway, but I find that it is not the case for most. Feel free to ask me about my familiarity with the topic/subject before the round. You can also assume that I know more of the topic the later the round is in a tournament.
- I do not judge tabula rasa, but that doesn't mean I will develop your arguments for you. If there is something very wrong/flawed about your argument, I probably won't give it to you even if the other team doesn't call you out on it.
- I would probably describe myself as a 85% flow judge 15% lay judge. If the round is between 2 very strong teams (i.e. multiple bids) and/or it is a late outround at a national tournament, treat me like a 50% flow 50% lay judge in the 2nd half of the round because my RFD at that point will probably be "you were more convincing" or "your side makes more sense to me."
- Please don't assume I know what your acronyms stand for because I probably don't.
- Please keep things like counterplans and Ks away from PF. I will look at disads, tho I prefer more traditional arguments.
- Most importantly, please be respectful; there is a fine line between being aggressive and being condescending/rude. Be aware of what you're saying and how you're saying it, and be aware of your actions regardless if you're speaking or not.
Bonus points if you incorporate puns, song lyrics, or the words “duty” and "lugubrious" in your speeches or get creative with fun/nontraditional taglines :)
If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round!
-Try not to read Theory or Ks
-Weigh in summary
-No new arguments in Final Focus
-Try your best to frontline in Second Rebuttal
-Focus on fluency and flow coverage
-Engage in clash
-Don't flow thru ink
-Always collapse in summary
If you have any other questions about preferences, feel free to ask me before the round
St. John's 20 // Stanford 25
Debated on the Texas circuit (PF) for four years and on the national circuit for one.
Your safety is more important to me than a debate round. What this means is:
- I will NOT tolerate sexist/racist/homophobic/etc behavior from debaters. I’ll drop you if you try it. I think that most debaters are good people, so unless you’re a real piece of work, you shouldn’t worry about this. Just be respectful.
- Sensitive arguments require a content warning. Ask everyone in the round if they are comfortable with the argument you are reading. If anyone’s uncomfortable, don’t read the argument. No means no.
- If you ever feel unsafe, don’t hesitate to let me know. I will try my best to accommodate.
General PF notes:
- Your warranting matters more than your evidence. Make sure you warrant your case/responses/blocks. The more you warrant, the more I'll enjoy judging you.
- Speed - I can normally handle speed; however, speaking really fast during an online tournament is not the move tbh.
- I’m tech over truth? I say this hesitantly because I don’t think this should give debaters free rein to run absurdly false arguments; if we all know that the arg’s untrue and the opponents just provide a warrant as to why it’s untrue, that’ll count as defense for me. That being said, I’ll buy your arg if it’s not responded to.
- I’m a sucker for narrative-style debates. In my opinion, it makes framing, extensions, and weighing a lot easier. I still require full link-warrant-impact extensions, but if I understand the argument as a part of a bigger picture, I’m more inclined to vote on it. Plus, I prefer these debates over the usual blippy extension of a poverty impact versus the probability weighing of a war link that always seems to happen in PF.
- I give more credence to weighing the earlier it’s done in the debate. Weigh early! :P
My beliefs on “progressive” debate norms:
Fundamentally, I want the debate space to be accessible to everyone. I think that progressive debate has the potential to work towards and against this goal. With that said...
- I’d prefer for progressive arguments to be read against opponents that can actually engage with it. Running prog args against novices is not the most educational, and it’s a great way for you to get a low-point win at best. Don’t use prog args to exclude your opponents from the round or I will be very sad.
- I will evaluate theory because I think it can be good for checking back abuses in round and for advancing better norms. Theory args need to be extended in every speech or else I’m not voting off of it. I’d prefer if you read a shell (A is the interp, B is the violation, etc) but paragraph theory is fine too. Please implicate the theory args for me. I need to know why, for example, disclosure is important for debate. On that note…
Common sense stuff:
o I default to util framing. Alternative framing should be warranted.
o You should frontline in second rebuttal.
o First summary should extend defense.
o Summary and FF should mirror each other.
o Voters are cool!
o Use your FF as if you were writing the RFD for me!
This bio was largely borrowed from the lovely and incredible Sylvia Duarte:)
April - This topic demands arguments, not descriptions, don't rattle off cards and examples mentioning the what without the why. Skip "in the first place" or "that's true in the short term but in the long term" for real comparative analysis. Uniqueness needs warranting. Evidence is a means to an end of the argument, not an argument in itself, and the same's true for indicts that are substituted for the arguments they're supposed to support.
1. Respect others, be equitable, contact me during/after if I miss an issue. Opt-in, anonymously content warn.
2. Won't flow off docs, won't flow overtime, don't skip anything including grand cross.
3. If dropped in the next speech, it's dropped. If not extended, it's not there.
4. I won't evaluate "strength of link weighing" to prioritize dropped arguments for being dropped.
5. Disclose for +0.1 speaks. Notify me or I won't know.
6. Average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.
I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook or ask me before the round.
- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.
- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal
- If you're speaking second, I think you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary a little abusive
- Be nice to your opponents!!! I cannot stand people who are rude, cocky, obnoxious, etc. in round. I will tank your speaks if you are rude
- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)
- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.
- I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whatever you're the most comfortable with
- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. If you don't feel comfortable asking in front of your opponents, feel free to message me before the round, come up to me privately, or email me firstname.lastname@example.org
- You should read trigger warnings if you have the slightest inclination your argument could be triggering to someone
- Summary and FF should mirror each other
- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be in first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary
- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts
- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.
Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).
I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision. If you have poor evidence ethics, depending on how bad they are, either your speaks will be hit or disqualification is possible.
Creative (?) Argumentation:
I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round, explain your argument well and I will try to evaluate it the best I can. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory or try to stay away from theory in general lol). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K. But generally, please please please don't read theory because you'll probably be unhappy with the result, sorry :(
IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. The threshold for me dropping you is pretty high so please never make me do this.
Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!
I debated for Edina for 5 years and qualified to TOC all 4 years of high school.
put me on the email chain if there is one: (email above)
tl:dr - tech > truth judge - tabula rasa. I'll flow the entire round, debate how you want - line by line/big picture idc. Everything in FF should be in summary.
- ay have fun! crack jokes - itll make the whole debate more fun and enjoyable
- i'll disclose the decision - if you think i messed up, roast me all you want, post round me, ask questions, idrc but don't be a dick.
speed: i can keep up and flow anywhere up to 300wpm. send a speech doc to me if you're gonna spread and make sure you aren't excluding your opponents. I'm also probably pretty tired so be wary.
weighing: pls pls weigh! weighing is the easiest way to win the round and structures how i view the debate. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.
second rebuttal: second rebuttal should frontline at the least turns, but prolly defense also. split however you want (ie 2/2 or 3/1).
first summary: unfrontlined defense is sticky for first summary and can go from rebuttal to final focus. if it is frontlined, still need to extend it. turns should always be in summary.
theory: i'm good with most theory arguments as long as there is a real violation, like the other team not reading a content warning for a potentially triggering argument. i'm not gonna vote on friv theory (shoe theory, disclosure, paraphrase) tbh. paragraph theory is fine if you don't know how to write the full shell.
Ks: these are prolly fine if you want to run the argument, but slow down and explain it rly well. i won't know the lit base but I'll listen to the arg and know how they work.
speaks: Average ~ 28.5 and go up/down the 0.1 scale from that. strategic decisions and collapsing earn a bump. i'm not gonna evaluate 30s theory tho.
evidence: cut cards are a must - whether you read those cut cards verbatim or paraphrase them is up to you. If anyone calls for ev, pls be able to give them the card promptly.
don't do these:
If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), you will get the L and lowest possible speaks. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.
offensive overviews: don't pull out a new contention in rebuttal, i'm not going to vote for an unrelated DA out of second rebuttal, and i don't think that reading a new contention level arg in first rebuttal is strategic.
dumping unwarranted args: don't read as many arguments as you can if it means sacrificing the warranting and explanation. that being said, i'm fine with any crazy arguments as long as there are warrants and implications. quality > quantity plz.