Tabroom.com

University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament

2020 — NSDA Campus, MI/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Asma Abuzaakouk Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Harry Bagenstos Ernest W. Seaholm High School 3 rounds None

Dan Berwick Saline High School 6 rounds None

Lucas Bowerman JR Masterman 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 4, 2022 at 3:10 AM EDT

I'm a polisci major at Temple University. I debated on the circuit in public forum for JR Masterman for 4 years and I’ve dabbled in speech and parli.

This paradigm is just a guideline, not a ruleset. If you’re new to debate or just don’t know something on here, don’t worry, I think of myself as pretty nice and I try to evaluate every round with the context of the competition in mind.

----Big warning: If I'm judging you in person I (may) have a resting bored face when I judge! This doesn't mean I don't like the argument, sorry about that----

The most important thing to me is that everyone feels comfortable in round.

I will drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism etc..

Please read trigger warnings.

I don’t care what you wear.

Time yourself please.

Speed:

I can handle some spreading, but please slow down if your opponents cannot. If you’re spreading please send speech docs to me and your opponents. “Pf fast” is totally acceptable and comfortable.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are rather arbitrary and so I tend to be generous, if you genuinely make an effort in round and are not offensive don’t worry about them.

Round Strategy:

I like when teams frontline 2nd Rebuttal. I value a good collapse and good narrative later in the round. Weigh early and often. Defense in both Summarys, weigh at the latest in summary.

Cross:

Be nice, (optionally) be funny. If anything important happens bring it up later in a speech. If both teams agree to flex prep you may.

Progressive Argumentation:

My circuit was fairly traditional, however I have exposure to theory and K debate in PF, and will vote on it. CI > Reasonability. I'll probably buy RVIs but they should be either hella warranted or specific to the shell. The more frivolous the theory the less likely I’m gonna buy it. I still don’t really know what trix are but if you think you can persuade me to vote on it feel free.

Evidence/Evaluation:

If you can’t produce a card in a timely manner I’ll assume it doesn’t exist. I’ll call for cards after round, but only if debaters in round instruct me to or if it’s necessary for me to vote. Tech > Truth, but honestly the less based in reality your arguments get the more likely I am to buy answers to them. WARRANT WARRANT WARRANT please.

Signpost and Roadmap please.

I presume neg

If you have any questions, concerns or if you wanna add me to a doc chain my email is lucasabowerman@gmail.com

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook 5 rounds

Asher Chancey JR Masterman 6 rounds

Bingjun Dai Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Jean-Christophe Deverines Washington International School 6 rounds

Bennett Dombcik Hire 6 rounds

Mark Eggerts JR Masterman 4 rounds

Eric Emch Winston Churchill High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 1, 2021 at 3:39 PM EDT

I am a parent "lay" judge. I debated in high school (Lincoln Douglas) and have done some PF judging in recent years, but am hardly an expert on the technical aspects of PF debate.

What I am looking for is clean, cogent arguments that are internally and externally consistent. Internally consistent meaning that they have an underlying logic that is well explained and does not conflict with other arguments your team makes. Externally consistent meaning that there is a tie to relevant supporting facts, and that the facts lined up to support your arguments are not in conflict with one another or with common sense.

On rebuttal, I'm looking for teams to attack the internal and external consistency of the other side's arguments. Again, I'm looking for logic and evidence in this attack.

The team that wins is the team that has the most convincing contentions that survive (withstand other team's attacks) to the end of the debate.

Pretty straightforward. Let me add a few things that I'm *not* looking for:

1. Too rapid speaking/high volume of arguments: Speaking quickly in order to get in the most words and make the most points is at best a tradeoff: you get more words, but your words become less effective if I can't understand them or can't fully grasp the point. On average, PF debaters I've judged speak too fast and the effectiveness of their arguments suffer as a result.

2. Overuse of debate lingo. Don't tell me you've won the debate because you turned their contention and negged their impact. Tell me in plain English why you've won. Or better yet, just tell me why your main arguments have survived intact through the debate and your opponents' arguments have not.

3. Rude/overly aggressive behavior: Yes, this is a competitive event and emotions can run high. But try to be respectful and polite towards your opponents at all times, and do not try to get "under their skin" with overly aggressive behavior.

4. Unrealistic impacts: Keep in mind that impacts have to do with probability as well as outcome. Impacting everything to utter calamity (nuclear war, societal breakdown) does not win if the probability of such an outcome is slight. It's really hard to judge the exact probability of extremely low probability events -- so try to keep it in the realm of reasonably probable.

Finally, let me say thank you for all of the work you all put in. I get the easy job, and I'm impressed by the level of effort and the quality of debate that I usually see.

McKenzie Engen ADL 4 rounds

Tate Evans Dexter High School 5 rounds

Beth Fowler Cranbrook 4 rounds

Sreenivas Gannavaram Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Hong Gao Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Robert Garza Hire 6 rounds

Charles Huang Hire 5 rounds

Kori Isaac Saline High School 6 rounds None

Jenny Jung BC Academy 6 rounds

Nathan Kangas Dexter High School 3 rounds None

Henry Khadka Westwood 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 12, 2021 at 11:41 AM EDT

Former college policy debater for GMU. Current student at Northwestern University.

Just use file share

Note for PF and LD debaters: When I say "policy v. k", policy just means non-Kritik arguments and cases.

I'm ok with and encourage spreading (must be clear, as always).

In general I don't think high school debaters spend enough time on defense, line by line, and analysis.

Note for online debate and the possibility of you cutting off, glitches, and whatnot: You should send pre-written analytics in the speech docs until the rebuttals. Please do not spread at full speed through analytics. It's important that I get down all of your arguments on my flow.

Signpost arguments.

tech>truth

Snarkiness/Condescension/Sass/Aggression won't lose you points, just make sure you can back it up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detailed thoughts:

Just a few of my thoughts on areas where I have peculiar thoughts compared to other judges. Whatever I don't touch on, I don't have any strong preferences and most of it is settled within the round.

Counterplans:

Generally like condo. Very hard for an aff to convince me that the neg gets 0 condo advocacies, beyond that it's settled in the round. A condo 2AR should be your last resort.

I default to not kicking the CP, unless told otherwise

Theory: I default to reject the arg, unless told otherwise (obviously it's debatable, that's what the round is for).

Policy v K, K v Policy/Clash:

It's very hard to lose the ballot if you win your framing arguments of extinction vs. structural or reform/engaging institutions vs. the K's strategy.

Both teams are better off if they treat the K like a DA. More thoughts below.

Framework: Overall both sides need to talk a lot more about their vision of debate. Also, both teams need to spend more time on defense.

Neg teams need to do better about contextualizing Switch Side and TVA arguments to the particular aff and what the implications of those args are for the round and the ballot. Contrary to popular opinion, education and fairness both are viable 2NRs.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad".

Policy v. Cap: just go for the impact turn and alt solvency, you're going to link.

K v Policy affs: READ INTERNAL LINK AND IMPACT D ON CASE! It will mitigate the case and most importantly help you on framing arguments about distrusting extinction impacts. If there's no internal link and/or impact D in 2NR, it will be very hard to win framing.

Kritiks: I am most familiar with identity theories, biopower, and Marxism. If your K isn't one of those - hold my hand. I think the most persuasive K debaters are those who read less cards and make more analysis. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line/tied into the case debate. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it clean. Unless your kritik concerns form/content - be organized. Links of omission will never win you the round.

K Affs: Your aff must do something. Deferral is not a strategy for me. I am not a fan of teams that just wait to get links until the 1NC occurs. I find performance debates some of the most fun rounds that I have debated in/seen, but K affs need to be at least somewhat related to the topic. Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable). I enjoy critical methods debates that attempt to develop a praxis for a certain theory that can be broadly operationalized.

Overall, just have fun and read whatever you want.

Jonathan Kim Torrey Pines High School 3 rounds None

John Lawson Wylie E. Groves HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 5:34 PM EDT

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Gael Le Guellec Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

James Lin Centennial High School 3 rounds None

Arnoud Lobbezoo Skyline High School 5 rounds None

Jeffrey Luo BC Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 2, 2021 at 7:36 AM EDT

I'm currently a university student studying computer science at the University of Toronto. In high school I debated for 4 years, in PF, CNDF, BP, and Worlds style, and I am currently a coach. I have been judging for almost 4 years now.

On evidence/logic: I will buy logic over evidence in certain cases, and I'm very sympathetic towards logical analysis due to my background in BP/Worlds. If a logical argument is more substantive and is able to explain why a piece of evidence is reasonably flawed/untrue, I will take the logical analysis. When challenged on statistics, teams should be able to defend their numbers by explaining exactly how those numbers were found or what study produced the numbers. For example, if an increase in the capital gains tax leads to a decrease in the size of an economy by 10%, then a team should know exactly how that 10% was measured, and under what conditions it was measured (if challenged).

On argumentation/structure: I'm very standard on structure. Do all the general things: extend arguments and refutations in summary, and weigh in final focus. I strongly value engagement with arguments: directly respond to arguments and responses, and shift the debate to a scope that better reflects the clashes in the debate. Note that I have zero tolerance for bringing up new material in final focus and I will immediately drop teams that do this. I give lots of credit to teams that can weigh effectively, and paint me a clear picture of exactly what their world would look like vs the world of the other team, and characterize the harms on either side. I strongly believe that a team doesn't have to win every single argument in the debate in order to win the round.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, but I will try to remember what was said. If you want me to flow something that transpired in crossfire please mention it during the speech. Example: "during crossfire, our opponent conceded that... "

In general: Treat me as a standard flow judge, but one that accepts logical argumentation and considers it strongly. I am generally non-interventionist in rounds, so I don't have exact speed preferences as I believe that there are times for both fast speaking and slow speaking. Please adjust to your discretion and what you deem to be most effective.

Bobby Lynch Dexter High School 5 rounds

Debora Marsh Dexter High School 2 rounds

Kristin McKeown JR Masterman 4 rounds

Connor P Mitchell Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:10 AM EDT

Maize High School (China, Education, Immigration, Arm Sales)

Wichita State (Alliances)

Cornell '24 (taking a sabbatical)

Formerly coached at Maize High School and St. Mark's School of Texas Call me Connor. they/them

connormlldebate@gmail.com

---Top Level---

1. Do whatever you're best at and I'll be happy. When I debated, I primarily ran policy args. My last year of debate, ~50% of my 2nr's were T. I was more K focused for a few years. I'm probably not the absolute best for K debaters (see section below), but I can hang. I usually find myself in clash debates.

2. Disclosure is good. Preferably on the wiki. Plus .2 speaker points if you fully open source the round docs on the wiki (tell me/remind me right after the 2ar. I'm not going to check for you and I'm bad at remembering if you tell me earlier).

3. Don't be mean or offensive. Please actively try to make the community inclusive. I think debate is sometimes an opportunity to learn and grow. However, openly reprehensible remarks and a continuation of poor behavior after being corrected will not be tolerated. I will not hesitate to dock speaks, drop you, or report you to the tournament directors/your coach if you say or do anything offensive or unethical. I can "handle" any type of argument but maintaining a healthy debate environment is the most important aspect of any round for me.

---Things that make me sad---

"Mark that as an analytic" - no.

Not numbering and labeling your arguments. Give your off names in the 1nc. It makes me frustrated when everyone's calling the same sheet different names.

Asking for a marked copy bc you didn't flow.

Stealing prep. You all are not as clever as you think you are. I know what you are doing.

Not starting the round promptly at the start time and generally wasting time unnecessarily. Debate tournaments are exhausting for everyone and I would like the round to be finished ASAP so I have time to write a ballot, give an RFD, talk to my teams, eat food, etc.

Not knowing how to email. I get that mistakes happen, but also it's the year of our lord two thousand and twenty four. The chain should be set up before the round. I really don't want to do a speechdrop.

Give your email a proper subject line so everyone involved can search for rounds when they need to later.

"I can provide a card on this later" - no you won't, no one ever does.

---Online Debate---

I'm a big fan of posting the roadmap in the chat.

Slow down. It's possible that I might miss things during the round due to tech errors. Most mics are also not great and so it can be harder to understand what you are saying at full speed.

I have a multiple monitor setup so I might be looking around but I promise I'm paying attention.

If my camera is ever off, please get some sort of confirmation from me before you begin your speech. It's very awkward to have to ask you to give your speech again bc I was afk. It has happened before and it sucks for everyone involved.

---Ks---

I'm totally fine with Ks, but my audio processing issues often are not. I struggle to flow K debates the most I've noticed, and I think a lot of that has to do with the way K debaters debate. Being hyper conscious of the flowability of your arguments is key to me picking up everything. I won't be offended if that means you pref me down. I'm mostly just requesting you don't drop huge blocks filled with words that are not easy to flow if you want me to flow everything you said.

If you're reading something that includes music in someway, I'd greatly appreciate if you turn it down/off while you speak. My auditory processing issues makes it difficult for me to understand what you're saying when there is something playing in the background. I don't have any qualms about this form of argumentation, I just want to understand what you're saying.

If you are going for the K in the 2nr and don't go to case, tell me why I shouldn't care about it.

K affs need counter interps. I require a greater explanation of what debate looks like under the aff model more than most judges. You should explain how your (counter)interp generates offense/defense to help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model. I don't think shotgunning a bunch of underdeveloped framework DAs is a good or efficient use of your time. Most of them are usually the same argument anyways, and I'd rather you have 2-3 carded & impacted out disads.

I think that fairness is probably an impact but I don't think it makes sense to use it as a round about way to go for a clash terminal. Just go for clash or go for fairness. Predictability is usually the most persuasive i/l for me. I think debate has game characteristics, but is probably not purely a game. If you go for clash, contextualize the education you gain to the topic and be specific. I think it rarely makes sense to go for both the TVA and SSD in the 2nr.

---Other thoughts---

Condo is good but I'll vote that it's bad if you go for it. I mostly don't think there's a great interp for either side.

I love scrappy debaters. I've only ever debated on small squads (i.e., my partner and I were the ones doing the majority of prep for the team) so I respect teams that are doing what they can with limited resources more than most. Debaters who are willing to make smart, bold strategic moves when they're behind will be rewarded.

I'm not sure how I feel about judge kick. It seems like it makes 2ars incredibly difficult, but I think sometimes that's okay.

I'm almost always willing to hear a T debate.

Nick Modrow Upper St Clair High School 3 rounds None

jessica morrow JR Masterman 6 rounds

Alex Nguyen Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 13, 2022 at 6:10 AM CDT

"Push me to the edge, econ key to heg" - Lil Uzi Vert // Collin Smith, Heritage Hall - Class of 2020 and University of Denver - Class of 2024

"There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again.'"

Alex Nguyen

University of Michigan - Class of 2024

Heritage Hall OKC - Class of 2020

Assistant Debate Coach - Heritage Hall OKC -- August 2021-present

Email: nguyenam@umich.edu

Big shoutout to Bryan Gaston at Heritage Hall for being an amazing debate coach and making me into the debater, judge, and person I am today.

Table of contents:

1. Policy paradigm

2. LD paradigm

3. Oklahoma LD paradigm

4. PF paradigm

5. IE/speech paradigm

6. Parli paradigm

----

Policy paradigm:

tl;dr: below

- I am fine with whatever you read in round.

- Please call me Alex and not judge.

- PLEASE SAY "NEXT" BETWEEN ARGUMENTS AND CARDS!!!!! You should do this if you want me to be able to flow you well.

- If I yell clear three times during your speech, I will stop flowing your speech since I cannot understand what you're saying. That's on you.

- Slow down on analytics please. Of course, spread, but don't read off analytics like you're reading the text of a card. If you're gonna do this, your analytics better be in the doc, otherwise, there's no way I'm gonna be able to flow most of your arguments.

- I prefer judging strategies that have specific links to the Aff.

- I am unable to evaluate any out of round links, as I cannot determine whether they are true or not.

- I am not the best judge for complex K debates. The only K I have experience with is settler colonialism. High theory like Baudrillard will be a bit difficult for me to judge. My only preference with Ks is that specific links to the K are better than generic ones, and I am more inclined to vote for the K if the link is specific. If you are running a K, I suggest you read the K section below.

- I will vote on conditionality bad/perf con if it is extended and won in the 2ar, however, my threshold to vote on it is very high.

- I am a sucker for soft left impacts.

- Aff has the burden of proof to why it is topical if topicality is an argument in the round.

- Ground and education are terminal impacts.

- I love a good case debate.

- If you're running 8 off and 4 of them are just 1 card DAs or CPs that have no solvency cards with just a CP text, I'm not a huge fan. I understand the strategic advantage this can give the Neg, but these debates just get boring and non-sensical. These debates just aren't fun to judge since the Aff answers these stupid one card DAs or CP w/o a solvency card with very few answers, then the block just blows it up. I think it skews the debate unfairly and heavily in favor of the Neg. In these debates, I will not hesitate to vote Aff on condo if it is well extended into the 2ar. Also, I will be very lenient on the 1ar reading new answers/cards in their speech.

- This is an educational activity and the judge is a norm setter. At the same time, debate is a competitive game. (ground & edu are a terminal impacts)

- Have fun and be respectful to your opponents. Racism, xenophobia, queerphobia, and sexism WILL NOT be tolerated. If this happens in a round, I will stop it immediately, vote you down, and report you to Tabroom and your coach.

- Add me on the email chain and keep analytics in your doc since online debate is a bit more difficult to judge, especially because it cuts out a lot. nguyenam@umich.edu

- Bonus points if you have a card doc ready for me if/before I ask for it. I like to read cards b/c I consider myself a truth>tech judge. However, tech is still very important to me. More important is the quality of your ev.

- If your style of debate is more traditional, i.e., no spreading, I'm okay with that. I've judged all types of debate and can adapt. Do what you're comfortable with. We're here to learn and have a good time.

Longer paradigm below:

I'll vote and listen to anything, but here are some things you might want to know going into the debate...

Bio: I debated in CX for the University of Michigan during my freshman year and all four years of high school, so I've five years of debating under my belt, plus more if you count coaching. I have been a 2a/1n for 75% of my debate career. The arguments I mostly went for my sophomore year of HS were politics DAs and counterplans when I was constantly switching between being double 1s or 2s, so I've seen both sides of debate. Starting junior year, I became a 2a/1n and flex debater running the settler colonialism K and also some policy DAs and counterplans. My senior year, I was also a 2a/1n and executed mostly policy strategies, i.e, politics & topic DAs and CPs. I will likely be a 2a/1n for the rest of my debate career, running mainly policy arguments.

In 2018, I competed in the Oklahoma 6A State Championship and attended Michigan 7 week program end of sophomore year and Berkeley 3 week program end of freshman year. In 2019, I competed in the Oklahoma 6A State Championship and made it to the semifinals and attended the Michigan Classic Debate program over the summer. In college, I plan on mainly running policy arguments and being a 2a/1n for the rest of my career.

Please add me on the email chain: nguyenam@umich.edu

I want your speech docs please. If possible, flash analytics for online debates. It makes it much easier for me to flow, in case you cut out during your speech.

I don't take flashing/emailing as prep time, but please be mindful of prep time and do NOT steal prep. Please keep your own time.

Clipping cards is bad and = an L.

I'd say I evaluate rounds on a truth over tech basis. I will read cards after the round, so I will ask for a card doc. Tech is still important to me, but ev quality is even more important. Bonus points for you if you have the card doc ready for me before I ask for it.

Any risk of no aff solvency means I vote neg on presumption. However, if the aff answers the no solvency argument just enough in the 2AR to be a valid argument and it makes sense, then they've beaten the no solvency argument. But, if the neg makes a no solvency argument in the 2NR and it's fleshed out and extended JUST enough so I can validly evaluate it at the end of the round and the 2AR cold concedes it in their speech, I automatically err neg on the no solvency argument, meaning I have to vote neg on presumption. That means that if the 2AR drops the no solvency argument and the 2NR extended it just good enough to be a valid argument at the end of the debate, then the aff CANNOT weigh any of its impacts on the off case positions at the end of the round since it CANNOT SOLVE ITS OWN IMPACTS. But if the no solvency argument is strong and both Aff and Neg make good arguments back and forth in the 2nr/2ar, I'll evaluate them fairly.

If there are any theoretical reason(s) to reject the team, I evaluate that prior to any positions in the debate. For example, topicality or conditionality.

I need a clear explanation of what a counterplan does at the end of the round and its net benefit so I can vote for it.

I am a sucker for soft left impacts, but you need to win why I should not evaluate util/extinction first. Also, it seems like I'm a sucker for theory args. (even if they're really bad)

I see a lot of teams only extending either only an internal link with no impact extension or an impact with no internal link extension. I believe this goes for all judges -- both parts need to be extended in order to win my ballot.

A few things people ask me in round that I can just put here:

Are you fine with speed? - yeah but if you're super unclear I will yell CLEAR. After the second time I yell clear I'm just gonna stop flowing and it's totally on you. In online debate, please slow down just a tad. Do not spread analytics like you would the text of a card. If you're gonna do that, put analytics in the doc. Even then, I may not be able to flow you properly.

How are you on Ks? - During my junior year at Heritage Hall, I mainly ran the settler colonialism K, but was a 1N, and have a decent understanding of that. However, I have not run many other post-modernist/structural Ks in my career. Please do not let this stop you from running any other Ks. When running them, please be sure to give me a clear overview of how the K functions and a clear link & alt story. If there is no clear explanation of how the alt functions or what the link to the Aff is, then there will be a slim chance I vote on it. A K without a link explanation is a no go for me. Remember, you can always drop the K alt, but use the link(s) as a case turn, which I would definitely vote on. (if you want to use them as a case turn, remember to tell me that you want to do so.)

Debate is a game, but I also believe it is an educational activity where we foster our advocacy/policy making skills. In order for that to be true, the debate round needs to be fair for both sides. I believe the judge is a norm setter in a debate and in the community. Ground and education are terminal impacts. Limits can be spun to be an impact, but I believe, for the most part, it is an internal link.

I hate long long overviews. At the end of the day, I feel like these really long overviews in the 2ac are just complicated to understand and read, so it seems like I don't really understand what the Aff does until the 1ar or 2ar because the overviews are shorter.

I tend to find that many K debaters like to read a link to the status quo, but not the plan. I think the K should link to the plan, and/or reps of the aff, and/or solid links to the advantages, otherwise it is an uphill battle--

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategic, always choose the more specific strategy.

Outside of round links -- I will not vote on them since it is impossible for me to 100% verify what happened out of round.

I am definitely willing to pull the trigger on condo bad and I really empathize with the Aff if there are many conditional advocacies read in the round. I think one conditional advocacy is fine, but if it's like 8 off and there's only one conditional CP but the rest are contradicting ethical positions, i.e., a K and a politics DA, I'm definitely willing to pull the trigger on condo ethics/perf con. Or if it's one CP and 7 DAs, you can definitely make the argument condo bad. Interp for this should be "condo bad -- neg should get zero conditional conditions."

Theory arguments need to have a voting issue and violation if you want me to vote on them. Otherwise, I just judge kick.

The aff has the burden of proof as to why they are topical.

One thing I am definitely heavy on is that I will protect the 2NR. If something is not said in the 1AR, but you shadow extend it in the 2AR, then I will not evaluate it on my flow. At the end of the debate, I will clearly articulate my flow to make sure this is the case.

Please tell me how I should evaluate things for you. I will do very very little if any work for you at the end of the debate to make a decision on your behalf.

FOR OKLAHOMA DEBATE: if you have me on a panel, I recommend you adapt to how the other Oklahoma judges likes to judge debates, unless they're a normal nat circuit judge. I'm very flexible when it comes to different forms of debating, whether it's a parent/lay judge or not. I've seen it all during my time debating in OK.

Speaker points (applies to LD, CX, and PF):

Under 27: You did something really bad, like being discriminatory or were extremely rude to your opponents.

28-28.5: Not a terrible debate, but there are a lot of things you can improve on. I will explain this in my RFD if you got something in this range.

28.6-28.9: Good debate, but not great. I think there are some things you can improve on. Your speaking could have been more clear. If you lost and got these points, this means I believed that you didn't debate terribly, but there was a winning 2nr/2ar. If you won and got these points, this means I believed that you also didn't debate terribly, but you made me piece some things together on my flow to give you the W.

29-29.5: Great debate! I really enjoyed watching and judging it. Sure, there are definitely things you can improve on, but you did great. If all debaters in the round got these speaker points, this means that it was a close debate and tough for me to determine a winner. If you won and got these points and your opponents didn't, this means I believe that it was pretty clear cut who won the debate and I think you did a great job piecing the debate together for me. If you lost and got these points, this means that the 2nr/2ar were both good and that it was difficult to determine a winner, meaning there are very minuscule things you could have done to win the debate.

29.5-29.9: Phenomenal debate. I think you're going to win the tournament, or at least be in late elims. I don't think I've ever given someone who lost these points, so I won't go into that here. But if you won with these points, that means you pieced things well for me, you spoke very clearly, made smart/strategic arguments and decisions, and were just awesome overall.

30: Yeah you're winning the tournament no doubt.

Have fun and learn! Most importantly, this is an educational activity.

-----

**Arms Sales topic notes (the part about K links -- taken from Bryan Gaston's paradigm)***

------

National circuit LD Paradigm:

For national circuit LD, I would say that my paradigm does not change much from my policy one, so please read my policy paradigm when you're deciding your prefs. I will judge your debate like I would judge a CX debate. If you are not okay with that, then strike me. After asking a few LD buddies about how LD differs from policy, here are some of my preferences.

- I can judges Ks. However, stupid theory arguments on Ks I will not vote on. Of course I am okay with FW, floating PIKs bad, and/or vague alts bad. Anything else I will either not be a fan of or I will vote on ONLY if it goes dropped the entirety of the debate and if it's labeled as a voting issue, otherwise, I just judge kick the arg. If your A strat is running these stupid arguments in front of me, I recommend you strike me before the tournament begins.

- Like I said above, stupid theory arguments will not fly with me. I want this to be an educational debate for all. I feel like theory in LD can evolve into really non-sensical arguments. However, things like conditionality bad I will definitely vote on.

- I will not vote on permissibility, however, I don't mind voting neg on presumption because I love a good case debate.

- In policy, I've honestly never been a fan of anything more than 1 conditional position. As a 2a who isn't the fastest, I get spread out pretty thin, so I empathize with many people in policy and/or LD. If you extend condo bad, I expect it to be the majority of your speech in the 1ar if you want me to vote for it in the 2ar.

- Anything you consider an LD trick -- do not run those BS arguments in front of me. Like I said above, if that stuff is your A strat, please strike me. I don't want to waste my time judging a debate like that.

- I am okay with spreading.

------

Oklahoma LD Paradigm:

Don’t call me judge. Call me Alex please. you don't need to thank me for judging in your speeches. i've heard this a few times and it's just cringy. i'm not gonna vote you down for it, obviously. but still lol -- it makes me laugh sometimes.

I mainly judge policy debates and only compete in CX, however, I think I will be tempted to judge LD debates like a policy debate, so I recommend you read the notes above.

a few notes:

If the debate comes down to framing, the Aff has to win framing prior to me weighing its solvency against the Neg. If the Aff loses their framing, they can’t solve/weigh the Aff vs Neg args, thus I vote Neg on presumption.

If there are any theoretical reason(s) to reject the team, I evaluate that prior to any positions in the debate. For example, topicality or conditionality.

Truth>tech

I want your evidence after the round unless I say I don’t want it otherwise. Send to nguyenam@umich.edu

Evidence quality means a lot to me

Saying racist/queer phobic/misogynistic means I will vote you down immediately, report you to your coach, and tabroom.

i highly recommend you read the section in my policy paradigm about Aff solvency.

if you want to run a K, do it right, but I don’t think Ks are prevalent in OK LD.

if you have me on a panel, I recommend you adapt to how the other Oklahoma judges likes to judge debates, unless they're a normal nat circuit judge. I'm very flexible when it comes to different forms of debating, whether it's a parent/lay judge or not. I've seen it all during my time debating in OK.

---

PF Paradigm:

Please don't call me judge. Call me Alex. I highly suggest you read my tl;dr version of my policy paradigm.

I tend to judge these debates like a policy debate, so that means I flow on a policy debate template on Excel or on paper like policy debate (more likely on Excel when judging). I will hold the line on arguments dropped in speeches then brought up in the last speech. I am a truth>tech judge, meaning I will likely call for pieces of evidence during the round, if not after the round.

I tend to see a lot of PF debaters telling me "My opponents dropped X argument! That means you should vote for me!" Even if it is true, you need to tell me why it matters in this round. I hate having to piece things together like this at the end of the round, and it ultimately leads to me piecing together an RFD that you probably won't like. Also, see the part above about internal link/impact extensions.

I am okay with spreading in PF, but please be clear. If you don't want to spread, that is okay.

Please keep track of your own prep time. I'll likely be timing your speeches, CX, and prep time, but there's a decent chance I get off track.

—-

Paradigm for speech/drama events:

my only preferences is that you don’t be racist, queerphobic, and/or misogynistic. Don’t call me judge, call me Alex. the purpose of the speech/drama events is to sound nice, persuasive, and performative, so do just that.

(just a side note about these speech/drama events: I have no clue why judges make you all dress up in fancy suits/dresses. I think debate/speech/drama should be fun and enjoyable activities where you should not have to be in fancy clothes for >12 hours/day. Basically, I believe that you should feel comfortable when debating. I don't care what you wear.)

---

Parli comments:

I flow these debates the same way I flow policy debate because it's the easiest way for me to organize and judge all arguments at the end of the round. I also want the debaters to control the round, meaning I want them to keep track of time and control the direction of the debate. I mainly judge policy debate, otherwise, I follow normal conventions of parli.

Please try not to go over speech times. I know there may be grace periods, and that's fine, but don't be disrespectful/unfair to your opponents by going over time. If I'm timing and notice you go over by a lot, I WILL dock your speaker points.

If I'm torn between two really good args about the same thing, I will default to the side who has the evidence backing their arg vs the side who doesn't. If there's no ev involved, it will be evaluated best I can.

If you can't tell, ev means a lot to me. The more ev the better.

Sophia O'Connor Saline High School 6 rounds None

Matthew Ost Saline High School 6 rounds None

Hongguang Pan Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Jasmine Park BC Academy 6 rounds

Steven Pearlman Washington International School 6 rounds

Kelly Phil Hire 6 rounds

Jay Richardson Dexter High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:51 AM EDT

Public Forum Debate:

I competed all 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing, cohesive arguments and responses, and unique/compelling arguments.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't necessarily drop a rebuttal or response with theory and no evidence as long as it makes sense, but for larger arguments that your case relies on, evidence is necessary. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge/an answer. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. If you signpost your speech properly, you won't need an offtime roadmap.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. While I was competing, I was definitely quick to make a crossfire heated - there's a pretty easy fix for this. Your speeches and your arguments should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job is not to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a basically blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that I do not appreciate. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming your entire piece is going to give me a headache and it's going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. I once judged a round where three people randomly did cartwheels and I had to decide who had the best cartwheel - please don't make me do that again. Thank you.

Victor Rivas Umana The Golden State Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:35 AM PDT

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Noah Rosenzweig Dexter High School 5 rounds

Paula Shuford Ravenwood High School 6 rounds None

John Sims Coppell High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Laura Sparrow Skyline High School 4 rounds None

Joy Taw ADL 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 11:44 PM BST

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

Phani Uppalapati Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Jake Wier Dexter High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 3:06 AM EDT

Hey, my name is Jake, not "Judge".

Addressing me as "Judge" just makes me feel not human and not present in the conversation we're having.

Since the Fall of 2019, I have judged and coached predominantly public forum and congressional debate for Dexter High School. I graduated from MSU with a degree in international relations. I am currently pursuing a Masters in Integrative Management and am a graduate admissions counselor for Michigan State.

I competed in policy debate with MSU from Fall 2015-Spring 2017. I attended Canyon Springs High School in North Las Vegas, Nevada. I’ve done all the forms of debate throughout middle and high school (PF for two middle school years, LD for one year, Congress for a few tournaments, and Policy my sophomore through senior year).

I want to give back to the activity that gave me so much.

I have paradigms written in the order:

1. Public Forum

2. Congress

3. Policy

4. Lincoln Douglas

Public Forum

Please remember that Debate is much more about developing skills than winning a singular debate. I conceptualize Public Forum as an event which can be watched by anyone. You are encouraged to speak clearly rather than "spread". You should strive to learn all the short-hand, technology, and research skills of any other debate. Don't imitate the speaking quirks of other debates.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

You have 3:00 minutes of prep. Use it well. Do not steal prep before speeches. You should be ready when you say you're done. You should immediately go into cross-ex or the next speech. Setting your timer or document up to read is part of prep. Please get better at being more efficient.

Constructives:

I believe the first speaker holds the responsibility of providing definitions and the necessary context for understanding the topic. I do think definitions and context can be framed strategically in favor of the side in which the team is arguing; therefore, I would entertain counter definitions (and warrants to use one definition over another). Also, see the paragraph below about Framework.

I believe that if you are the second speaker, it is strategic for you to have a plethora of contentions that you can draw from to form a case that has built-in answers or "turns" for your opponent's case. For example, you know that you can only fit three contentions into your case to be within time. Yet, you have 5 or 6 possible contentions that you can put together to make a cohesive case. Reading one of your contentions that you know gives you a leg up on your opponents by either turning their argument or refuting their argument is strategic. It will also limit the ability of the first speaker to spread you out after their first rebuttal because the second rebuttal has to not only answer the first rebuttal but provide answers to the opponent's case.

I like it when teams use a lot of evidence, but if you have evidence that is using percentages, decimals, and whole numbers, please just do the conversion so they are all the same. I generally don't like data laundry lists, unless you specifically tell me why each point of data matters.

Summary:

Your summary should invest a lot of your speech time in impact comparison. Go through magnitude, timeline, reversibility (whether there is a brink point), etc. You need to be contextualizing your link scenario. You can not jump from an overview to saying that causes nuclear war without telling me who is fighting and why.

I catch maybe 50% of the authors/citations from the constructives. You can not just say "Extend Krueger" as an answer or extension. I probably don't know what evidence you're referring to. I would prefer if you say, "Extend Krueger which says...". At that point, I will usually catch the citation and call for the evidence if I really need to. I rarely call for evidence.

Final Focus:

Your final focus should start with a Reason for Decision. Tell me at the start the reasons I should vote for you and what my ballot does (does it fiat, actually save lives, decide on a decision about the rules of debate, or is it just a logical decision for which side I think is best.). The best teams can rehash the debate and close all the doors line-by-line.

Cross-Examination:

You should not be asking your opponent to reiterate anything. You should be asking leading questions like, "You said [paraphrase], correct?", "Your first contention was X, correct?". Asking "What was your first contention?" or "Can you explain your link scenario?" just gives your opponents more speech time and often leads to filibustering. If you ask these questions, you're lucky if you get good speaker points. I like teams who filibuster if their opponents don't know how to cross-examine them. I would like cross-ex to end at 3:00 minutes, not 3:30 because you're allowing the other team to ramble.

I don't typically flow cross-examination, but if you're asked a question like, "What is Iran's motivation to attack Israel?" and your response is, "Their feud goes way back." That doesn't give me much confidence that you actually understand your argument. This means your extension of that argument in the speech is just a reiteration with no contextualization, and that's not a good argument.

Framework:

In most of the PF debates I've seen, framework is not argued properly, and it has become an unnecessary 10 seconds of everyone's speech time. If a framework is not mentioned, I assume I should vote for the team attempting to do the greatest good for all people (general utilitarianism). If you want to provide a framework that tells me to vote for the good of America, the poor, the few, etc. tell me, and my ballot will assume that framework unless argued against. If you do not want to contest your opponent's framework, you don't have to. If the framework goes uncontested after the first constructive on either side, I don't need you to extend it through to your summary and final focus.

I think you can tell me whether my ballot has any actual meaning in the world. Does my ballot have a real world impact as soon as I vote? I would also entertain a framework that tells me to vote for the team that provides the best education/practice of skills because my ballot does not impact real policy.

Evidence Sharing:

Public Forum evidence sharing rules are dumb and unclear.

Any evidence read/cited in the round must be made available to the opponent upon request. Teams ought to be able to find and electronically share their evidence very, very rapidly. If the time spent finding a piece of evidence is beyond 90 seconds, I will begin taking prep away from the team asked to provide the evidence. The lack of prep time CANNOT be a reason to deny a team the chance to see their opponent’s evidence.
If a team simply cannot produce their evidence or is out of prep time to find it, it will be dismissed.
Time spent reading the opponent’s evidence must be timed in some way, either as prep time or while another speech/crossfire is underway.

Kritiks:

PF has not evolved to include Kritiks, from what I've seen. I don't think it should evolve in that direction. Four minutes doesn't really allow you enough time to make a good case for a Kritik like argument, and I think Public Forum should really be about developing real-world skills.

Word Choice:

I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of your speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc.

Conduct:

If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. I'll be happy if we are all comfortable and relaxed.

Congressional Debate

My ballots are typically short and include whether you've made an appeal to ethos, logos, or pathos. I try to judge congressional debate as interactive original oratory. Therefore, you should be hold yourself in the role of a senator and making the most appropriate appeal. I judge based on persuasive your speech was in relation to the other debaters, but also how well you held to the appeal you thought was most important on the topic. Make sure you're reading the entirety of the legislation, and speaking to the legislation as written and not the top line idea. Please cite your evidence or at least introduce your author.

Politics is a cut-throat world. I find it humorous that most of the congress rounds I've watched have devolved into this utopian atmosphere where you find a way to make sure everyone can give a speech. I do not like to reward students for being cordial in a competitive event. The presiding officer has the responsibility to give everyone fair and equal opportunities to speak. The other competitors can strategically use the rules of order to be more competitive. If you are consistently overriding the rules to allow multiple Pro speeches in a row, you are not doing anyone favors.

You should be preparing speeches for multiple legislation per round. If you missed your opportunity to speak on the one legislation you had prepared, that sounds like your fault. I also think there are plenty of pieces of legislation that are debatable on both sides, so if you can't play the devil's advocate on lop-sided legislation, you are not "playing the game".

Each speech should have clash. Rebuttal (with a direct reference to the senator who made the argument) is an example of clash. Adding nuance to another senator's point that was on your side is clash. If you are rehashing the same points, you are not clashing, and will not be rewarded for doing so. As the author of a bill, or first speaker on the bill, I evaluate your positive clash by seeing whether you have introduced all the major talking points on your side. I think you can introduce the talking points briefly, and allow other legislators to add evidence.

I think it is very difficult to judge the presiding officer. So long as the presiding officer is staying organized, and doesn't make mistakes, they typically do well. I think presiding officers hold the responsibility of encouraging good debate. They do not have to entertain every motion to postpone the rules and allow the last person to speak if the previous speeches on the topic have only been rehash. Given that presiding officers typically do well, I think it should be a competitive appointment. Unanimous decisions for who should be PO typically mean the kids know who the best in the round is.

For all points of order, I try to use Robert's Rules of Order. I'm no expert, but you should be: http://www.rulesonline.com/index.html

Policy Debate

Speed: You do you. I’m pretty good at following arguments if you’re clear and do work signposting. I have experience debating in front of flow and lay judges so I understand any experience level. Some speeds are impossible to follow unless you have a speech doc; don’t go that fast. I don’t think I ever want to get in the habit of flowing on my computer so you will most likely see me flowing on paper.

Theory: I’d vote on theory if it was dropped. Everyone has to lose on condo at least once in their life. If you’re going to make theory the only thing left in the debate, it needs to take up all of your time and you need to do a good job explaining why they’re abusive. Condo is really only abusive if there is more than 1 of each argument, but I can see either side. I’d still vote on condo (in some cases) if the neg met that interpretation but dropped condo.

T: I really only like watching T if the aff is clearly untopical, or if it’s a Kritikal affirmative. I evaluate the analysis of abuse the same as if it were theory. I don’t mind you putting T in the 1NC if you think it would be a viable 2NR option. I went for “T quid-pro-quo” on the Latin America topic quite a bit, but I knew it was really silly. I can also justify T if it is purely for laughs.

CP/DA: 99% of the time these were my go-to arguments in high school. Go for anything here! Extra bonus if you have aff specific arguments. I don't have too much experience going for politics as the Neg. I always went for PC isn't real as the aff and winners win. It's hard for me to vote on an unquantifiable influence token. I am willing to evaluate the evidence and determine my opinion of politics in the round.

K: Don’t read things that you haven’t done background research on. I read the security k and cap/neolib k throughout high school because I read a ton of books about them. I wrote a 25 page research paper on reevaluating American capitalism during my senior year of high school. I have background with any queer theory/gender/sexuality arguments you might have. Other than that, I’m not very familiar with most arguments, but if you do a good job explaining it, I’ll vote on it. Anything is fair game if it isn’t absolutely absurd. Coming from a background with little experience against the kritik, I can sympathize with the teams that freak out when a Kritik is read against them, but I won’t vote for them if they don’t answer the argument. If you can teach me new things, I’ll be happy.

K Affs: I really don’t understand the purpose of Kritikal affirmatives that don’t have a plan text. Most of the time I just hear implications of what voting aff means without getting a concrete answer. You should have a reason to vote aff, and I’m not sure what the reason is without a plan. I’ll vote for you if you do a good job explaining it. I have a litany of ways I’d scrutinize performative arguments that come from my background in interp. Go for what you do best.

Performance arguments: Most of my high school success came from Humorous Interpretation, where I qualified to the NIETOC twice. While I don’t think this will affect how you debate, it should make you think about how you read any performative arguments in front of me. I have been a 2A, 2N, and double 2s. I had a different partner every year in high school. I was mostly self-taught in policy, and my coach advised me to do a lot of silly things. I was part of the only policy team our school had. Therefore, I understand if you aren’t familiar with certain arguments or have limited backfiles, because I was in the same boat. I always preferred judge philosophies that were broke up into categories after the intro; therefore:

Offense vs. Defense: I feel like there are scenarios where the neg can win if they only have defensive arguments at the end of the debate, but don’t make that your priority. In that instance, I would evaluate that scenario as the world is better without the aff. Yet, I’d vote aff in that scenario if they proved benefits outweighed the cost.

Flashing/Prep/CX: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/email is sent unless there is a clear computer malfunction. Otherwise, it’s just inefficiency on your part. Don’t steal prep time. I am alright with tag team cross-ex, but don’t take all of your partner’s time. Cross-ex is a good opportunity to elaborate on arguments that have been/will be made.

Word Choice: I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of the 8/5 speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc. I’m okay with some cussing, but don’t make it like you’re talking to your best friend. If the other team reads an argument against you for cussing, I’ll laugh and vote for it if it is good.

Conduct: If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew, because it was fairly laid back. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. If you can make me feel comfortable, I’ll be happy.

Bonus points: I like people that express Spartan pride. Make good jokes and puns while speaking. Dance at any appropriate time during the debate. Make a reference to someone you know from Las Vegas. My dad is a magician. If you can do a relevant magic trick, I’d be amazed.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am predominantly a public forum judge and a former policy debater. I'm still learning the nuances of Lincoln Douglas, but hopefully, I can provide you with a clear paradigm. Most importantly, I want you to debate in whatever manner you feel comfortable debating. I can adapt.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think it is important for each side to present a value and value criterion. If one side has the two, but the other side does not, I will assume I should follow the uncontested value and value criterion.

I am familiar with most philosophies from either my policy experience or the classes I took in college. I'm not a huge fan of advertisements of nihilism, but could be persuaded to understand that some life events are inevitable or needed.

Benjamin Wolf Westwood 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:11 PM CDT

Updated January 2024

About me:

I am currently the speech and debate coach at Theodore Roosevelt HS.

I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.

I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.

My email is benwolf8@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after rounds.

TL;DR version:

I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and warrant arguments. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

Evidence Standards:

Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.

Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/

You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.

Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.

If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.

Prep Time Standards:

Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.

If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.

Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.

-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.

-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.

-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.

-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.

The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.

Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.

CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.

DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.

Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

Stanley Yang Edgemont Junior-Senior High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 24, 2020 at 10:03 AM EDT

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.

Gavin Yelsma Saline High School 6 rounds None

Marc Yoon BC Academy 6 rounds

Dunia Zawideh West Bloomfield High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 9:25 PM PDT

I’ve been coaching for West Bloomfield High School and judging for 7 years. I do not like to intervene and put my personal opinions into the debate. It is up to the debaters to decide how the round will go and to back up their claims through sufficient evidence and reasoning.

DECORUM

Above all else, you are learning and growing as debaters. Any abusive or overly competing behavior does nothing for the educational activity that debate is intended to be.

I do not like when debaters cut each other off during CX. This is a time to understand your opponents case, how are you going to do that if you won’t let them finish their response to the question YOU asked? Keep it down to questions, this is not time to argue. I prefer you address your opponents'caseinstead of addressing them directly.

SPEED

When I'm judging, I don't get to ask you clarification questions in the round like your opponents do, so -- above all else -- prioritize being understood by ME and not just trying to read fast so you have more on the flow. Remember, for me to flow it, I have to be able to listen to and understand what you're going for; prioritize clarity over speed.

Do NOT spread (speed-read). Anything over 300 wpm (look up a video for reference) is "speeding". It's not like I can stop you from speed-reading, but I only flow the things I can listen to AND understand, not just the remnants of things you vaguely enunciated at 10000mph. I don't care if you've disclosed your entire speech verbatim; if you can't read that speech in a way that I can understand without me looking at your disclosed speech doc, you'll have a tough time with the flow.

SPEECHES

Please signpost your arguments! "Signposting" is stating what argument you're responding to before you start responding to it. It helps to organize and understand what you say for both your opponents and the judge.

Cross-examinations: I have always thought CXs were the most important part of any debate round, so listen closely. If you or your opponent say something in VERY stark contrast to your case, that goes on my ballot. Essentially, anything that raises a big red flag goes on the flow. This, however, does not happen often and can be arbitrary since there's no definitive scale for what's considered "in stark contrast" to a case. Thus, your best bet is to mention anything from CX that's of importance in a speech as soon as possible to ensure it gets on my flow.If you ask good questions & are polite here, I typically give high speaks.

STYLE

I'm a mix of Tech and Truth judging. Tech means judging exclusively on what's said in the round; Truth means judging based on how true your args are to the real world. I think any good judge should consider both -- it can prevent debaters from substantiating args that are exceedingly unrealistic but also holds debaters accountable for making realistic args (or at the very least, bringing them up at the appropriate time).

I fact-check any and all "Truths" before I use them in a decision. If it's highly controversial, out of date, or not concrete enough, I just don't use it in voting and default to whatever you told me in the round. In other words, unless you literally have me trembling in utter fear about being nuked to extinction/pandemic'd to oblivion/whatever, I'm probably going to factor in the more realistic impact.

THEORY & Kritiks

Preferably not in PF... Theory/Ks maybe, but it should be topical and relevant by the time you bring it up. I would vote for theories/kritiks if they're outstandingly clear, but I should be shaking in my boots at the mere thought of not voting for your theory/K.No tricks whatsoever-- they're super abusive and I'm not voting on that.

PET PEEVES

Please do not say "Judge, we've won this debate," because you don't know that.

When you are done with your speech, let me know by saying some variation of "we urge a (pro/con) ballot" or some indicator that you are done. Otherwise I might just think you are taking a long pause.

TLDR

Don’t be an abusive jerk and you’ll be fine.

Login to Tabroom

University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament

2020 — NSDA Campus, MI/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges