Lindale Fall TFA
2020 — Online, TX/US
Public Forum Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 3 yrs
Please be sure to clearly weigh in both speeches! Don't just throw around buzzwords with no actual weighing. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be extended in both speeches. I will usually vote off of the clearest link chain in the round. Cards should have quality warrants (less paraphrasing please). Quality over quantity.
I would prefer if offense (and maybe defense if possible, but not necessary) is frontlined in the second rebuttal, and that both teams collapse throughout the round. Do not try to go for too much.
Extend terminal defense in summary.
Speed is fine as long as you are clear.
I never ran any K's, theory, Cps, but will do my best following if ran.
Please be nice to each other!
Please use a tagline that explains how to flow each attack, extension, or additional evidence. Be sure to extend every argument from speech to speech! I DO NOT flow crossfire, so anything said during crossfire should be brought up in your next speech if you want me to flow it in the round. :)
As a PF judge, I am looking for sound arguments that are unique and well supported by your research. Your arguments should be able to be understood by a general lay audience, not just a judge with debate experience. You may provide off-time road maps, provided they are less than ~10 seconds. Please, no spreading.
When it comes to PF, your arguments should be understood by an audience who doesn't have debate experience. I do not prefer spreading in PF, because of this. If you are going to spread, you need to make sure you are speaking clearly and making sure each point made and all evidence provided is clearly presented to the judge/audience. When making an argument, make sure it is sound and supported by evidence/research. I appreciate road maps before speeches. They don't have to be timed, but should be brief (no longer than 15 seconds). If you bring up an observation, it needs to be carried through the round, or it will not be counted in final decision.
Congress-I used to be a Congress debater, so I am very focused on both the way you communicate your arguments as well as the arguments themself. If you are a good speaker with no clash and non-unique arguments, you will not be ranked over others who have more wholesome arguments. Additionally, I do focus on Parliamentary Procedure, and this can make or break a round. Bad control of the room is reflected on my ballots. Finally, quality is always better than quantity. Just remember, if I don’t notice you in the room, it will be difficult for me to compare you to other debaters.
Debates-I enjoy a good flow of debate, and I must be able to recognize what is being argued. A lack of clear articulation of case arguments will hurt your debate as a whole. Additionally, I am open anything during the round, but be clear when you intend on introducing an obscure aspect to your roadmap. Signposting is not necessary if I am sent your case.
Speaking-I will focus on clarity and articulation of arguments in your speech, as well as your arguments themself. All arguments should work with each other to express one clear idea, and a failure to connect each argument to the topic of your speech will yield to a lower overall ranking.
1. Quality over quantity
2. Frame clearly
3. Respect your opponent
4. Prioritize your time
5. Not all arguments are equal
6. Not all evidence is equal
7. Make your case clearly
8. Make my vote easy
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.
PF: I did pf for 3 years in hs, and I've been judging for a while. I'm pretty much a flow judge so if you want me to weigh something, say it. I'm ok with speed as long as you aren't spreading and just keep in mind that if I don't catch what you say, then obviously I can't weigh it so you might want to slow down if you want to make a point. As far as reading cards and such, if you want to bring back evidence later on in the debate just say the author, year, and tagline so it's easy for everyone to flow.
Other than that, I'm pretty laid back so if you want to run CP or disads I'm kinda ok with that just make sure that it makes sense and isn't intentionally confusing.
LD: I did one year of ld, so I'm not the most well versed in it. If you are spreading I want to be on the email chain/ however you are sharing files so I can follow along. Run whatever you want, but just keep in mind that I'm not well versed in things like theory and kritiks, so you might have to do more work to convince me of those. If that sounds like something you want to do, go for it. I'm still a flow judge, so I won't vote off things that aren't said.
General: I don't really want to have to do any work for either team in terms of extrapolating information/arguments, I would prefer if you extended things clearly across the flow verbally. I will extend things and do work for you if there is really just nothing else to vote on.
In terms of magnitude, timeframe, etc. I weigh each one evenly pretty much so its up to the debater to convince me why I should prefer magnitude over timeframe etc.
I do like grouping arguments especially in the summary speech of pf for example, but you shouldn't just drop all evidence and arguments for the sake of a "cool grouping" or something.
You can ask any other questions to me if you are confused/want to know more.
I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during the case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.
If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.
I will vote on a warranted argument regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.
In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.
Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.
LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to pref me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.
Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.
I did LD debate and DX/FX for 3 years at James Bowie High School. Had a lot more success in speech than debate, qualifying for state in DX/FX twice. I'm also experienced enough in debate to be able to evaluate most types of arguments.
Speed: I'm fine with speed, but I'm mediocre at actually hearing everything so being able to read your arguments will help me a lot, unwritten args I'd prefer if you slow it down a little, and emphasize tags.
Arguments: I'm totally fine with progressive/policy arguments like DA's, CP's, Theory, T, K's, etc. I did not run much theory or many K's, but I did hit them often. As long as it's very clear what you're saying then I can keep up. If it's extremely complicated then maybe reconsider running it. Keep Theory/T/K's a little slower.
Speaker Points: I usually start at about 29 and go up or down based off of strategy/overall cohesion of your arguments/case. I tend to give high speaks in general.
I like to keep rounds pretty casual to avoid unnecessary stress, so feel free to ask me anything but just be polite to everyone in the room.
Competed PF for 4 years at Lovejoy High School, qualified for state 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. I now compete in College Policy at Indiana University. I can understand anything as long as it is clear.
I am tech over truth in that I will prefer a mediocre point with 0 defense on it over a strong, realistic contention with 2 unanswered pieces of terminal defense.
Due to the nature of PF moving to paraphrased cases and the new online setting, if you read a paraphrased case in any fashion, send the case along with the cards to my email. It is way easier to expose bad evidence ethics in person and it's too easy to get away with online. Email is at the bottom.
I want to see more logic and reasoning come out of rebuttals than Card dumps, do not give a pre-made speech in rebuttal, especially without specifically explaining what each card means in relation to the case.
If you want it in final focus, and want it to be weighed, it should be in your summary as well. Also PLEASE DO IMPACT CALCULUS. Tell me on what scale is your impact either more likely, impactful, or far-reaching(scope).
Repeating your link chain is not extending the argument... Unless they opponent drops is completely, but you must still explain what this drop means in the context of the round and why it can, or should, win you the round.
(Update for online, most of this doesnt apply as you are looking at a computer screen. Just try to keep t persuasive.) I know from experience, we all want 30's in the speaker point category, here's how you get one from me. First, be conversational, speaking like a robot in every speech and staring at your flow will not get you good speaks from me. Second, in cross, do not get bullied around and ask 1-2 total questions, but obviously be respectful and if your opponent asks for a question after you ask one, just give it to them. Third, your ability to weigh and crystallize your argument in the later speeches will come as a factor in your speaks, do not make me decide which argument is more important, tell me which one is the winner, and what specifically happened in the debate that makes that the case.(Drops, unanswered turns, non-unique's, etc.)
I am not one to hear CP's, K's or Theory arguments very well, so if you read one, it must be very specific and have a very clear violation.
If you have any other questions on any in-round preferences, feel free and ask me in round.
Email is email@example.com
I am a parent judge and I've been judging rounds for three years (mainly PF) - do not read any progressive arguments including, but not limited to
If you make a non-topical argument, I will not evaluate it.
Please explain your arguments at a conversational rate as I will not consider them if I can't understand what you are saying.
Be kind and respectful to me and your opponents. Don't be rude during CX- I will reduce speaker points
Do not introduce new arguments in final focus, I will not consider them in my decision.
I will not disclose, please refer to the ballot for critiques. Please time yourselves.
For TFA State:
Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.
Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.
Worlds School Debate:
School affiliation/s : Northwest High School
Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School
Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No
Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)
I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.
Check all that apply
__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level
_____I judge WS at national level tournaments
_____I occasionally judge WS Debate
_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before
_____I have never judged WS Debate
Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.
Check all that apply
____ I have not judged this year
____ I have not judged before
Have you chaired a WS round before?
I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.
What does chairing a round involve?
Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?
I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?
I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?
I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?
First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.
I did pf in high school (graduated from flower mound in 2020 & a freshman in college right now), pf wise I'm tech over truth and you can run whatever as long as it's not like something no one would be able to respond to. I vote off the flow and speed is fine, just be clear. cards are important, don't misconstrue but analytics are def also valid. preferably extend everything through every speech including summary, but up to you. if you want more detail on pf look at Nikhil Guddati's paradigm, for how I do speaks/topicality/K's/theory. also, be nice (v important)! on the off chance you're reading this for extemp, I did that in hs too and I'm content > delivery and I know everyone messes up but I'll know if you're just lying lol.
I'm a parent judge who likes logical arguments, and calm speaking. Be respectful throughout the round. If you send me your cases or add me to an email chain, +1 speaker points.
Hello! I am a first-year alumnus of NSDA and am currently studying at Hendrix College. I have four years of speech and debate experience and have participated in USX, poetry, standard oratory. I was a Lincoln Douglas debater my freshman year and competed in Public Forum for the other three. I went to NSDA nationals my senior year (2020) in public forum and was in the Top 12 in extemporaneous debate.
In terms of my paradigm, I have a couple of things worth noting:
- I expect discourse to be civil. That being said, if your opponent brings intensity into the debate, I am more than okay with you standing your ground. My preference, however, is that the round doesn’t get to that point.
- Yes, I would like to be included in the email chain! My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
- I will call for cards if it ends up being essential in the round or if you ask me to.
- Spreading isn’t my favorite, but I can handle speed. However, if I’m staring at you and not flowing, that’s my way of indicating to you that you’re going too fast. Please try to moderate your speed, especially given that the online format has so much potential for lag.
- Key voting issues are of significance to me. I want to see you make overarching connections and tell me what you believe matters most in the round. Don’t just tell me what your opponent didn’t do, but try to also tell me what you did particularly well!
- I love arguments with depth; try to pull in new pieces of evidence and add more complex ideas to the round. Otherwise, it gets boring and redundant for everyone involved. This is supposed to be an educational exercise. Experiment and try to synthesize your argument in a context larger than the round!
If you have any additional questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins. Other than that, I look forward to being your judge!
I have barely judged Public Forum so I can be considered a lay judge.
What I'm looking for:
- I will try my best to not determine the round based off of speaking but rather how argumentation is done in the debate.
- I prefer the quality of arguments over the quantity of arguments being said in the round
- Try to speak slowly and clearly in the round, especially when talking about a potentially major argument.
- Since there might be a lot of contradicting arguments, please make sure to explain why your claim is better so the round becomes easier to judge
- Please keep track of your own time
- I will generally give good speaks unless something offensive is said in the round
- I don't mind some interruption in the questioning periods but don't be too aggressive
- *if you have me in any other debate event than PF or LD: I'm so sorry. I'm not gonna lie to you: this won't go well, and I apologize in advance.
- Yes, put me on the email chain. email@example.com
- *For LDers: they've been sticking me in ya'll's rounds all year despite my objections, so I've reluctantly become somewhat mildly knowledgeable about how the event works, and can safely say that I won't be the absolute worst judge in this event, and should generally be able to follow along most substance. That said, please treat me like a flay judge, and ease up on the speed and the jargon, because if ya'll start spreading or feel the need to try some new-fangled progressive argumentation, I promise you that I will have no idea what's going on and will either default to the team I can comprehend or literally just flip a coin if I don't know what's going on for either of ya'll.
- No longer relevant because COVID, but leaving it here for posterity: Bring me food and I'll give you a 30 (just you, not your partner, unless he/she/they brings me food too-- no freebies).
Some stuff abt me: I debated in PF for two years for Westwood High School, one of them on the national circuit where I achieved mild success. Now I'm a second year out. Here's what you rly need to know:
TLDR: Warrant, weigh, and don't be abusive. Tech>Truth, but don't be offensive and/or dumb. Yes, I disclose, and no, you don't have to.
- Yes, I intervene. 2 scenarios where it will happen: Either you're being incredibly offensive (sexist/racist/homophobic, etc.) in the round, or you lie about evidence. To clarify the first: I haven't seen many egregious examples of this type of conduct, but suffice to say: when you cross a line, I will drop you. I don't care if you won the flow-- if you actively contribute to making the debate space more exclusionary, I refuse to reward you for that with a W. To clarify the latter: It's one thing to marginally overstate the extent to which a card supports your contention. It's another thing entirely to cherrypick the part of a card that supports your argument, while ignoring the entire list of answers to your argument made in the next paragraph. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I will simply drop a piece of evidence if I find it to be misconstrued. But if your entire link chain is based on one card, and that card is a straight-up lie (at least the way you read it), I will drop the entire argument from my flow and refuse to evaluate it. I won't necessarily drop you for it, if you have some other source of offense that wins you the round, but you will be at a disadvantage from that point forth, and your speaker points will be dismal. This has happened exactly once so far in my time judging-- please do not be the second, whoever is reading this.
- Yes, I give 30s, but sparingly. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that, and when I do, it's only to 27. If you get less than that, you must have made me very angry. The overwhelming majority of my rounds consist of 1-2 people with 29s, and the others with 28. If you dazzle me (this is largely just a function of speaking/presentation quality, which I view as distinct from the flow), I'll give you a 30.
I heavily dislike presumption/default votes, and expect you to not put me in that position. If you're confused about what this means, let me elaborate: A very disturbing situation is one in which I have to view two or more paths to the ballot that are both equally strong. Don't misunderstand-- this most often means you're doing something wrong. For example, if I have two ways to evaluate the round and I can literally flip a coin to figure out who gets the W because you frontline and extend completely separate arguments while doing 0 comparative weighing, I will consider factors such as quality of extensions, which scenario is more of an offensive argument to vote off of, etc. to make my decision. To clarify, this DOES NOT mean I will intervene to give the W to the team I like more in the round. It just means that the team does the better debating in a bad round should win the debate, rather than me reducing the ballot to the outcome of the coin flip-- ergo, no "presuming" anything.
Speak fast if you want (mostly-- but if you're over 300 words per minute, we'll have trouble), as long as you’re clear, and your opponents don’t get spread out of the round (hint: if this is a potential issue, ask if they would like to establish a speed threshold). But if you wanna ignore this, just let me be clear about something: I. Am. An. Extremely. Lazy. Person. I try to intervene as little as possible in debate rounds, and that extends to your speaking. If I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you-- I shouldn't be doing that anyways. It's your job as a debater to convince me of stuff, so do it right.
CPs/Ks/Theory and progressive whatnot--- No. This event was designed to be a form of debate accessible to everyone, and I believe these types of arguments undermine that purpose. Not only do I doubt I can evaluate them correctly, but I'm frankly tired of seeing teams (you know who you are) from big schools with multiple coaches that are flown out every other weekend, go into round and spread theory shells against small-school teams (from predominantly local, lay circuits) about how small schools are supposedly harmed by non-disclosure or paraphrasing.
- Paraphrasing- I don't understand why people are so uptight about this in PF. Reading direct quotes doesn't mean you can't misrepresent what the evidence says, so the logic behind the "no paraphrasing" requirements that many judges/coaches set doesn't really make sense to me. Again, this event is designed to be accessible to everyone-- in some cases, that necessitates paraphrasing evidence in order to articulate your arguments in the clearest way possible. But independent of that, I think it's important to realize that with the time limits being what they are in this event, sometimes paraphrasing is the only way that you can have enough time to make an argument at a deeper level and really provide a complete narrative for the judge to evaluate. So please, paraphrase if you want, and don't read theory against it unless there's actually an egregious case of misrepresentation that changed the coarse of the whole round.
I shouldn’t have to say this but: Claims/Statistics need warrants before they can be evaluated as arguments, and this applies to all offense and defense in the round. If you extend an impact without extending the warrant (or vice-versa), I count it as dropped-- not weighable. Extending an argument, ESPECIALLY with the new extra minute of summary, should be done cleanly, with everything important mentioned in both summary and final focus. If neither team does this, I won't be happy.
- First summary is no longer allowed to skip extending terminal defense. If you're gonna extend it in final focus, I want it in summary as well. This year, the NSDA has literally given you an entire extra minute of summary AND prep time. There is no excuse anymore.
If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but I'm cool with it), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns.
Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, AT A MINIMUM. I think you should frontline defense as well, but I won't penalize you for not doing it. I like overviews, and don’t care if they’re in second rebuttal. Any overview read in first rebuttal MUST be answered in second rebuttal, otherwise it is conceded. You can allocate your time however you want-- I did 2-2 splits throughout my (very short) career, and it usually worked.
Terminal defense extensions are good. Turns are better. You can drop your case at any point in the round and still have a shot, assuming you did it right.
Anything in final focus must be in summary, except weighing (It doesn’t matter to me when you do it, as long as you do it because too many of you don't). Everyone needs to weigh. No one does. Please do. If not, you run the risk that the round becomes a messy stalemate (happens more often than you’d think), forcing me to intervene, and neither you nor I will appreciate the outcome of that.
- Weighing is more than saying buzzwords like probability, scope, magnitude, etc. You actually need to explain it. In fact, if you just get to the point and avoid saying those buzzwords (as in just say "Our impacts are more important because 1) we save 150 million people, while they only save 5 thousand, 2) We give you global benefits while they're restricted to China, 3) The chance of accessing X benefit is X% more likely to happen that nuclear war, which is almost possible today because of mutual deterrence"-- ALL WITHOUT SAYING THE WORDS "WE OUTWEIGH ON MAGNITUDE, SCOPE, AND PROBABILITY, BC ___") , I can guarantee you'll have extra time to warrant and even add some more weighing mechanisms, and maybe even some meta-weighing-- and then you'll be EXTREMELY likely to get my ballot, along with a FAT 30 :)).
- I realize that a lot of people won't be comfortable with this because it goes against everything ya'll were taught in debate camp and school and whatnot--- so I won't penalize you for it, meaning you COULD get a W30 without doing any of this-- it's just infinitely more likely that you'll fall back on buzzwords as a crutch and do 0 weighing, so be careful.
I strongly prefer that teams collapse in summary/final focus on key issues. You can go line by line in summary if you want, but by the time you get to final focus, I think you should be collapsing on 1-2 voting issues in the round, and CRYSTALLIZING.
Please have your evidence (preferably cut cards, but PDFs are ok if you paraphrase) available when your opponents call for it. As someone who debated with a very unreliable laptop and frequently used paywalled articles, I know sometime it takes some time to pull up evidence, so I'm slightly forgiving with this and will do my best to not be unfair. But try to not take it too far, because it's annoying, and if I'm on a panel, I can guarantee that I'll be one of the only ones who'll be nice about this.
Misconstrued cards will be dropped from the round. If I catch you straight up lying/falsifying, you’ll be able to tell; my face (particularly my eyebrows) is very expressive when I’m angry. Suffice to say: you’ll get an L25, and you’ll know you did, well before I announce it, post it on tabroom, and loudly scold you.
I don’t like jerks, but I love sass!. Please, by all means-- Be funny!!! (if you can haha) Tournaments are too depressing most of the time, for everyone, so ya'll might as well make this an entertaining experience for all of us.
- If you are being overtly offensive (as in racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc.), you will get an L25, period.
This is my first time judging Public Forum so treat me as a lay judge.
1. Speak slowly and clearly in all speeches and explain the warranting behind all of your arguments
2. Please collapse in summary and give me a clear reason to give you the ballot
3. Speaks will generally be between 27-30 unless you are offensive to the opponent
4. Please keep track of your own time and prep time throughout the round
I want to see a good debate.
Respect for everyone is very important.
No yelling, I will drastically lower your speaker points.
If you send me your cases or add me to an email chain, +1 speaker points.
I'm a tech judge. Speed should be fine as long as you slowdown on taglines. If you are going to spread, I want an email chain in round as I am out of practice. I will call clear a couple times if you are really unclear, and after that point I’ll just stop flowing.
I did policy a little and did pf for two years so feel free to run kritiks, theory, and other progressive arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained (I will not vote on disclosure in pf, so please don't run it, I also won't vote on friv theory either).
I am sort of a stickler for extensions so please extend all offense you want to be considered in summary and final focus. Also, please extend the impacts to turns, i won't do it for you.
Second rebuttal has to cover all of the other team's offense, whether it be turns, case, or overviews.
Extend terminal defense in summary, no need to talk about it after that unless it becomes a main voter.
I also stop flowing once the time stops, any new arguments made after the speech time won't be evaluated.
If i find that the round is essentially a wash, or if there is no weighing done, I will most often default to the easiest form of offense to vote off of, but sometimes I might not. The point is that you probably won't like my decision if you leave it up to me to decide what's the most important point in the round, so please weigh/extend.
Also, if evidence is heavily contested, or if it just seems really suss in round, I'll probably call evidence at the end, so please cut cards truthfully and portray them correctly. If I find that a card was clearly fabricated or miscut, it will result in 20s and it will be struck from the round.
Finally, offensive arguments (racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic) and behavior will most likely result in 20s at the very least so please be respectful to every one in and outside of the round.
Most importantly, have fun! Debate is an amazing activity that can teach so many important lessons.
P.S I would really appreciate it if you preflowed before round.
Most of the same stuff for pf applies here.
Kritks: I am familiar with the basics, but in round I need more explanation of the links, role of the ballot, and the literature base (if it’s outside cap, sett col, or anti blackness). Be wary of running it in front of me if you can’t explain it well. I’ll do my best to understand the arguments you’re making but I don’t have a deep enough content knowledge to understand everything if the application of the K doesn’t make immediate sense.
Theory: I’m decent with theory, please just read shells, no paragraph theory.
Phil: My phil knowledge is not as deep as other ld judges, so please explain your value/criterion if you have them, and why they are important. Also, make sure you link your contentions back to your framing.
In general, debate the way you want to, I don’t really care what you do as long as you have good warranting and explain things well. I will evaluate everything the way that the round dictates it.
My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org
Wylie High School (2015-2019)
UT Dallas (2019-?)
- scroll down if you want event by event specifics
- With whatever you run, I prefer a link to the rez
- Be strategic and collapse
- I prefer a speechdrop for all debates, whether CX or PF. Again, just a preference. I flow slower than most and prefer the tags in front of me. And for the love of God, please don't flash, or do an e-mail chain. It's just speechdrop.net, I'll set it up if you need help. everyone gets at least 29 speaks if everyone agrees to an e-mail chain/speechdrop
- I don't care how we run the round, just don't get me in trouble with Dave Huston, Jason Warren, or any of the other tournament directors
Should you strike me/be wary of me:
Unless you debate and a progressive, theoretical, and philosophical level that's above my head, I think you'll be fine. As much as my debate understanding goes, I can comprehend everything up to a traditional policy debate round but have been learning a lot since graduating and judging on the circuit. Ultimately, if you think I might not understand what you're running, try to make the round educational and see if we can both learn something.
Here are some personal prefs concerning args/debate:
- I'm cool with K's, but prefer a link to the rez. I still don't understand the concept on running non-topical K affs, but if you make the case for it I'll vote for it. I don't read K lit in my free time or anything so if you want it i need an explanation.
- If you're running theory let there be a clear abuse violation, and then, detail it to me and why it should be a voting issue, but please don't lay all of your eggs in one basket.
- I don't understand tricks. I'm so sorry.
- I can tolerate a good T debate, stress on the word "good". If it's bad i will go run to tab and ask to give a double loss
- Impact calc is cool and i like it
- Disclosure good. Just know I won't vote for disclosure theory against a small program. On this, please don't make the debate one where disclosure theory becomes the primary focus of the round, I'll be sad
- When extending, please cite the warrant, including the tag and the card, It makes flowing so much easier.
- Putting your pronouns on the tabroom blasts is super cool and awesome!! You should do it!! I'll show you how if you want!! Regardless, introducing yourself in the round with your pronouns is super cool. On this above note, don't try and joke about pronouns. That's an automatic 25
- Expect an L25 and the immediate stop of a round if you try to make debate an unsafe space. This is up to my discretion.
- on TWs: I don't find myself needing them, but that doesn't mean others will not. If you run a case that may involve one, ask if your opponent is ok before you do
- If you're rude during cross-x don't expect any speaks higher then 27. Tense cross-x's are really hard for judges to sit through. Also, I don't flow CX, you should extend anything said in CX during ur speech. I was likely distracted by y'all's tense cross x where I was too bothered to pay attention
- If the debate is a varsity debater against a relative novice, make the round educational and adapt. Both competitors should agree on whether to take the debate on a certain level of K's and phil
Event-by-event quirky things
- CX: run what you like, but please see my warning about my limited comprehensibility of phil and certain K's.
- LD: i really like framework and framework clash, but it's certainly not required. unlike most LD judges, i'm ok with the idea of one-person-policy, but let's not get too extreme out there
-PF: DA's and CP's good. If you want to run anything beyond that ask. I'll probably be down. Be nice. Please collapse and be strategic. If it's not extended into the summary and FF it won't be voted on. Voting issues in the FF is a must! Bonus speaks if everyone agrees to a speechdrop or email chain.
- Congress: For the PO: don't suck lmao. I'll vote you up as long as you don't crash and burn. I'd prefer open chamber as regulations allow. If you're speaking beyond the second or third negative, you need to have rebuttal args or clash; I won't rank you good if you give a boring contention speech. Also if I hear rehash I might puke. I like to think of Congress as a lay hybrid of extemp and debate, so definitely use those extemp skills.
- Speech: Give it your all and don't adapt to my preferences. On trigger warnings/content warnings, I personally don't need one, but fellow competitors might (a TW/CW might be needed for graphic depictions of SA, DV, abuse, etc.). Err on the side of caution and preface one if you think they might be warranted. They're usually best placed in the intro. If not needed, then just go lmao. If you run a graphic piece and someone ends up actually triggered because you didn't warn them about a sensitive topic that you're performing don't expect a good rank. I only include this information about TW/CW because the debate over their usage has definitely resurged, and don't doubt the good that they do in the safe space that is the speech and debate community. Use proper caution and discretion and I won't care.
Have fun everyone!! i'll post updates as i think of them
Background and general views
I've been doing this for a decade now, so this isn't my first rodeo. I can adapt to pretty much any debate style, so do what you prefer. I don’t want you to be so focused on trying to please me as a judge that you lose sight of your case or your coaching. The one exception to this is spreading; I shouldn’t have to have your case in front of me to understand what you’re saying and I will drop over this.
I enjoy a lively, energetic debate, so don’t be afraid to be assertive. As long as you’re not blatantly rude, I won’t dock your speaks for being aggressive.
I prefer not to be added to email chains. If a piece of evidence is called into question, it’s up to you to prove why it should or shouldn’t be considered. As for emailing cases, refer to my comment about spreading.
I prefer when your FF speeches contain more weighing than summary. I want you to identify the voters and explain exactly how you outweigh your opponent on the key issues. For extensions and drops, I expect you to remind me what the card is and why it’s so important.
Cross isn’t for establishing new arguments, so I won’t flow any new ideas you bring up. I’ll make note of anything conceded during cross as well as general participation, but cross won’t factor too much into final scores or decisions. During GC, I want to see both partners on each team participating.
It’s up to you to attack your opponent’s case. No matter how silly a point may seem to you, I’m going to flow it through if you don’t effectively refute it.
hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.
1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline
2. defense is sticky
3. PLEASE signpost. I will cry if you don't.
4. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.
5. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.
6. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.
Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.
Theory: I will probably never vote off of it, especially if it is paraphrase or disclosure theory. If you are gonna run it in front of me, make sure you do a good job and thoroughly explain your argument.
Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.
Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.
I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.
Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being a dick)
If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.
If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at email@example.com