The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston
2021 — Online, TX/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a parent judge. I am looking for a clear articulation of the arguments. Clarity over speed. Respect each other.
Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 on local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. As a college freshman I coached and judged extensively last season. I'm a second year out now. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer.
-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.
-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.
-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).
-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.
-Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.
-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will default con, but before that I will try to find some miniscule piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).
-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!
-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time
-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.
-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.
Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)
-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!
-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.
-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!
-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).
-Quality of responses>Quantity of response
Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:
-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.
-2 exceptions tho:
A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.
B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")
-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.
-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence
-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.
-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.
-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.
These are the scenarios I call for evidence:
A) A debater tells me to in the round
B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true
C) It is important for my decision
-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.
Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!
Bio: Former PF debater (2014-2018). Been judging PF from 2018-present.
Timing: Time yourself/your opponents. If your opponents are going over time, just raise your phone up (be chill). However, if they go over time and you don't call them out, they get the benefit. Evidence reading off-time, but I reserve the right to say, "Hey, this is taking too long." If all the debaters in the round agree, we can skip grand cross (you can get an extra min of prep instead).
Speed/Speaking: If I'm looking up from my flow and not writing, it means that either a. I can't keep up with you or b. you aren't saying things that I can write on the flow. Either way, not good. If you are worried about the speed issue, give me a copy of your speech.
Etiquette: I'm not very uptight about these things. You can sit during speeches and cross. I don't care about language. I like jokes. To be clear, this just means I like when debaters act chill/normally/informally, I am not ok with insulting/disrespectful language. No need to shake hands.
Also, please get to the round on time, especially at nat-circuit tournaments. If you need a little bit of time to get your stuff together before the round, I will give it to you. Just try not to be late because then I have to tell tournament directors that you don't exist and that will make me and tournament directors sad.
Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost...pretty please?
I'd rather not judge a K, you'd better be really good and your opponents really have to not do anything with your K to win with a K. Just don't do it pls. Stay on topic.
No specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan). No alt on the Neg. You can probably tell that I am asking you to not Policy in PF.
Partners can communicate with each other while one of them is giving a speech. Pass them writing on a paper or something if necessary.
Holistically, I am pretty tabula rasa, but if a team says something ridiculous like elephants are purple, if the other team says "no, elephants aren't purple, make them explain the warranting for that claim extensively", that will be good enough response for me.
The beginning (Constructive):
If your frameworks agree, please just stop mentioning it, I'll use it. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you HAVE to use ours" is not a good argument (unless your opponents didn't address it at all and it flows cleanly through).
Cross-Ex: I will not judge on what it said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. Remember I don't care what you say, so don't just engage in cross just to grandstand! Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case so you can make better arguments. Focus on the warranting, cards are not the same things as warrants. Make the discussion meaningful. Seriously, if you don't have any meaningful questions, do not just say things to say things, I do not care at all, we can stop early.
The middle (Rebuttal/Summary):
I like off-time roadmaps before speeches (make it simple, "framework, their case, our case").
I will accept overviews, tell me where the overview goes on the flow (your case or their case).
If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you're frontlining a response to your case, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to. I like numbered responses.
The 2nd rebuttal must address the first one. The first summary should respond to the 2nd rebuttal (also the first speaking team's defense will stick if the second speaking team hasn't responded to it in rebuttal).
When extending cards, I benefit more from hearing you explain the warrant of the card because I really suck at remembering/writing down author names. Example: "Remember the second warrant from John Doe, explaining blah blah blah" <- see how there was an explanation and not just the author name?
Please extend arguments throughout all speeches in a non blippy way, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. Remember, the summaries contain all the content that you are allowed to discuss in final focus.
Please verbally label turns on the flow, so I can see the offense (just say the word "turn").
If you are gonna collapse on an argument, you can literally just tell me "hey, we are collapsing on contention X"
The end (Summary/FF):
I like carded weighing analysis, but definitely do analytical weighing and explore methodology of studies etc. I really prefer seeing debaters explain the intricacies of their arguments rather than maintain a narrative with what cards flowed through the round. I really hate key voters because they usually lead to bad weighing. Keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially I prefer line-by-line). I strongly encourage collapsing, just make sure to tell me what's important. At the end of the round, I will vote off whoever has the most offense relative to the winning framework. Remember, do analysis using weighing mechanisms like probability/timeframe/magnitude/irreversibility, but then also do analysis on why I should prefer one mechanism over another (strength of link is important). If the last sentence didn't make sense to you, just ask me before the round. If you don't do these things, I will face palm at the end of the round and have no clue as to how I should evaluate offense.
I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. However, I would really like for you to call for me to read cards if you feel its needed. I try to be non biased when it comes to my take on the legitimacy of evidence, so unless a team completely misrepresents a card, I can't call them out on their BS unless you tell me to.
Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. I will probably disclose, unless you don't want me to. I will provide a verbal RFD too. You can ask me questions after the round about anything. If you still have important questions but we are out of time because next round needs to start, email me.
Kempner '20 | Stanford '24
or just facebook message me
4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice
***Update for Zoom Tournaments: Slow down on authors and tags in all speeches. If you are worried about speed, I'll take speech docs and follow along. Clarity>>>
dec '22 update:
Send case cards on the email chain so we don't have to wait a bunch for cards
Updates as of Jan '22 topic
- FOR STRAKE RR OR ANY RR: I WILL NOT EVALUATE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION UNLESS IT IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE TOPIC, i.e don't read disclosure or paraphrase bc you didnt do any prep (normal tournaments, do whatever, keep my progressive section in mind)
- Far too many teams are sacrificing warrants in exchange for technical victories. To win you must fully extend your argument, i.e the uniqueness, link and impact, with the warrants on each of those levels.
-send me your case docs and set up an email chain with your opponents(lets save time)
- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)
- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here
- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.
- Debate is a game so tech>truth
- Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
- I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
- if i look confused, i probably am
- give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
- defense isnt sticky
- Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
- if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
- absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics
- Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
- For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offense overviews in second rebuttal are annoying, but you do you
- I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
- Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
- Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability
- Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
- case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
- do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
- Dont do "extend our link"
- for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
- please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
- this also goes for arguments that are conceded
- First summary
- Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
- Second summary
- This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
- Defense must also be extended
- Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
- Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
- I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me
- I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
- If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
- I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
- You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
- Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it
- there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate
- Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
- Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
- I will vote for one team and one team only
- I will evaluate theory
- Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
- Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
- if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
- Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
- I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
- I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.
- i will not evaluate K's with no link to the topic and tricks. I don't know how to evaluate this stuff and I also think these arguments are insanely exclusionary.
- K's with links to the topic are your best bet with me if you're gonna read these kinds of arguments
- at the end of the day, it's substance or you're scared. I think topical progressive arguments make a lot of sense and are good for the activity, reading stuff like the Good Samaritan paradox ain't it.
- Sam's Thoughts on progressive debate align really closely to mine, It's a long read but I think it definitely goes into a lot more detail than what I have here.
- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading
- This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices
- Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech
- From cara’s paradigm ““If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.”
- if you call "harv*rd" Stanford of the East, you get +0.5 speaker points (this has to be if you had evidence from that organization, it cant just be random)
- I agree generally with Nibhan, Nilay, Raj and Abhi when it comes to general views on debate (tech specifics are on my paradigm)
- im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
- if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important
Speak slowly if you can, i'm not very experienced with fast speakers.
I like to hear numbers in terms of impacts, and clean link chains.
I participated in LD and CX back in the 1980's. I know some things have changed, but I will follow an argument all through the debate to see if it ends up being dropped by the opponents. I expect debater's to weigh each argument.
Explain how your arguments are pro or con to the resolution. I have been told I am a technical judge. I evaluate how the argument is presented and will count it in my decision even if I personnally disagree with the resolution. I know that the teams need to be able argue both sides of an issue and the resolution's truth is not what I'm evaluating. I'm watching to see who argued the resolution better.
Identify the arguments you are responding to. Make sure it is clear. example: The Negative Team's argument about having a less informed electorate is incorrect. My argument addressed this with the need for voters to learn about the issues.
Depending on the resolution, I may weight one side a little more than the other depending on how hard it is to make good arguments, but recognizing the truth of the resolution is not the reason for weigting it. Clever arguments and good cross examinations are important. An effective argument in Cross can win the debate.
If the Pro (Aff) vs Con (Neg) is decided by coin toss and the toss winner chooses Con and the Aff chooses to start second then I don't want any spreading from the Affirmative and only a little from the Negative. It is hard enough thinking backwards on the logic. If Aff goes first then a little spreading is OK from both teams. If the toss winner decides to be Affrimative, and Neg goes second I'm happy. If neg chooses to go first I will be harder on the neg. as I will be allowing the aff full rebuttal weight in the final round where Neg can no longer respond.
I'm finding 4-6 main arguments per debate about right. 3-5 for Affirmative and 2-4 for Negative. If Affirmative has a lot of Arguments the Negative team will have a job responding to all of them and may only have a couple of their own. This is not an expectation or requirement, just an observation I have made while judging.
I have been pleased to see teams being very polite in how the time for each speaker is managed. This has not been an issue.
I'm a lay judge.
I prefer you to make your speeches slow and to the point
I look for these things;
1) Logical Argumentation
2) Strong Presentation
3) Ethical Debaters
Make sure you have fun and let me know if you need anything in the round.
*my email is email@example.com*
LD- I'm fine with speed. run whatever you want.
PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH.
Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit.
be good = you win
Policy Debate Paradigm:
The things you are probably looking for:
Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.
Performance: I do not want to see a performance (deal-breaker)—I took policy debate extremely seriously, and I only want to see your creativity showcased through your strategy and your arguments; however, a relevant and cutesy pun here and there will be well-appreciated.
Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.
Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.
****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********
Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.
· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.
· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.
· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.
Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.
Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:
My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.
My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.
**tl;dr read the bold. I like starting on time/early if possible.
For background, I debated PF 4 years at Newton South and it's my 4th year coaching at Nueva. I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round. The later in the day it gets, the more tired I get, so if I'm grumpy it's not you, it's me.
---Most normal tech things apply: here are more unique thoughts
Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense as your arguments get more extreme/factually incorrect. I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.
You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds). This isn’t Pokémon, I don’t want to hear why your card beats their card.
Please do not signpost by cards (ideally, number voters and use contention tags)
- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :)
- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) and/or there's actual discrimination happening and/or it's drop the arg not the debater
- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I think you should consider thinking of weighing less with buzzwords and more by literally thinking about why one is more important than explaining it (truth is convincing).
- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, drop it. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.
- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that: please don't make "they don't care enough" args.
Last thoughts: I generally don’t presume and instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. Let your parents watch your rounds! They've earned it. And remember to eat!
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. Please feel free to reach out for any concern, round/not round related.
As a judge, I would like students to be
1. Clear in communication. Students who talk too fast tend to mumble words/sentences and it becomes very difficult to comprehend what points they are trying to make. The pace of talking should be such that judge is clearly able to make out what they are saying. They also should be loud enough, especially in environments where multiple teams are debating in same room on different tables.
2. Students should provide clear, succinct evidences and avoid repeating same point again and again.
3. Students should be cordial and respectful of other teams points.
I have judged Public Forum once previously, one weekend of 12 rounds. I am a lay parent judge.
So please, no jargon.
Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23
Email Chain/Questions: email@example.com
Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.
Arguments that I am comfortable with:
Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.
Arguments that I am less familiar with:
Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.
Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.
Speaking and Speaker Points
I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.
Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.
I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.
You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.
Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.
EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).
If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.
open cross is fine
flex prep is fine
I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded
Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.
Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.
In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.
I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.
Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.
- C A D E N D A Y
I am a parent judge who prefers clear and fully extended arguments. Some key things to avoid in round:
1. Speaking Fast (if I cannot hear/flow your argument I wont consider it)
2. Summary can be largely line-by-line but quality over quantity-be clear on your contentions
3. WARRANTING: If a card is that important within the round, you should be extending it clearly through summary and tell me WHY
4. WEIGHING: Summary and Final Focus however should have clear weighing (Why should I prioritize your impacts)
5. Keep track of time for both yourself and your opponents (I will not be timing you guys)
If you have any other specific questions please feel free to ask me before round. I will provide feedback via ballot comments. All the best!
I am a lay judge, but I've judged many rounds after having two sons who competed in PF.
- Make your points and links to the proposition clear.
- Be respectful of each other and your opponents.
- Focus on the specific merits and fundamentals of the argument.
- Avoid theory/shells and kritiks. Use arguments, evidence and logical connections to win your case.
Hi, I am a Finance and Supply Chain Management major at University of Houston. Yes, I do want to be added onto the email chain. I believe that debate should be a fun activity for everyone involved. I will not appreciate any one team being dismissive or disregarding of the other team.
Email for email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
I competed in public forum at American Heritage in high school (2014-2016) and policy at FSU (2016-2018). Any questions you have specifically about my paradigm can be asked before the round.
- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. I probably have not read your specific K lit if you go that route, make sure you explain it. If your theory is frivolous its a lot less likely to win, but go for it if you are confident in winning it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot" and it is different in every speech, I probably will not evaluate it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot", you should be able to recite it from memory without changing the phrases multiple times in the debate. Do not read a "role of the ballot" if you do not plan on keeping it consistent, it will result in worse speaker points.IF you're reading a K or other critical argument, explain your authors warranting, don't just assert an extension without explaining and characterizing your authors warranting to the specific debate.
- If neither team has any risk of offense at the end of the debate, I will default neg on presumption. I ALWAYS prefer to vote off a risk of offense over presumption, your probability analysis could win you the round. Provide a contextualization for your impact, and attempt to maintain a narrative throughout the later half of the debate. You will be a lot more convincing.
- Generally have been tech over truth. In PF there are significant time constraints to explain intricate link chains to arguments that may maintain more "tech" than "truth" in their nature--try to stray away from these. My threshold for responses to arguments that are more "tech" than "truth" is pretty low. If there is a large difference in strategy that allows for one of the "tech" over "truth" arguments to win on the flow, that is where I will vote. (eg. Team A reads a nuclear war scenario, Team B only responds with vague variants of "MAD", as long as Team A responds and extends warrants, this is still a tech over truth win)
- Sound logic is better than crappy cards. I think the main determinant of good quality evidence is not where it comes from, but the warranting the author uses to justify either their research or logic-based conclusions. The "why" in evidence is more important than where it is from unless a debater can prove that where the source is from be grounds for the warranting to be undermined.
- Cx is binding.
- If you disagree with my RFD, feel free to postround respectfully, I will be glad to answer any questions or give my thought process when deciding as long as the discussion remains civil.4
NATS Update: PLEASE HAVE YOUR CUT CARDS READY. Do not just send a link in the email chain and then have your opponents control F. it wastes time.
This is not about the stats you have, if you are not making an analysis with your stats, that is reason enough to vote on presumption (please don't make me). Just having bigger numbers, doesn't mean the round is a clear win.
UNLESS IT IS A GAME CHANGER please for the love of whoever you pray to, do not try to win a debate round on recency of evidence. It becomes a moot point and a waste of your breath.
I debated for Barbers Hill HS for four years. In both LD and CX. Qualifying for TFA state my junior and Senior year. I did IPDA- public debate- with during undergrad until Spring 2020. I am now working on my MA at Texas A&M. Currently the PF coach for the Dulles in Houston, Texas.
TLDR (1 = best):
General: I'm fairly open to seeing what you're most comfortable doing as long as it creates good debate. Many times I have seen rounds where it was like two ships passing in the night because someone read something so off the wall there was no way to respond to it, or maybe there is a way but no one knows it but you. That's not cool. I will yell slow, clear or loud. Sit, stand or float. I don't mind one way or another. I always stood, but because my coach didn't afford the option-- do what makes you happy!
Taken from Megan Nubel’s paradigm- “Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction, though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks."
You do you. I will yell slow or clear if need be. Please, though, for the love of debate, slow down for author names or tags at least. If you get an unnecessary amount of "clear" warnings, I'll probably deduct speaker points or stop flowing altogether. You need to be aware of your threshold of what is clear and what is not clear.
I've always been a Util debater but will listen to the best you have. Having done policy before, buying extinction impacts are more difficult for me (I say this because I had a judge say they were totally cool with it all, I read an extinction impact and then was told I read the one thing they wouldn't ever vote on), but I won't vote on it. You just need to make it very clear to me why it's such a big issue. Tip: the longer the chain the less buy-able the extinction impact is. If you want an easier way to my heart and my ballot, read short chains with more plausible impacts.
I fell in love with the K debate at the end of my junior year and tried to read them as much as possible in my senior year. While I wasn't necessarily a K debater all of high school, I've read plenty to know generally where you're probably going to be trying to go. But do not assume I know everything about your K. I don't appreciate backfile Ks just to have something to read-- I feel like that errs on the said of the bad debate. Taken from Cameron McConway's paradigm- " I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks, though."
Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well. I’ve had my butt kicked by too many good debaters with very good T/Theory strats to just be okay with you reading something and not doing something effective with it. If you read it to try to spread the aff out of the 1A, it's strategy, but I’m not a huge fan of kicking something like that. I was taught it was the top layer of debate, so I wouldn’t kick out of the top layer of debate. I will just you (get it because I have the ballot lol). I don’t want to feel like I should be defaulting to anything, but if I have to not only will I draw a sad face on the ballot but I’ll only to it to drop the argument and competing interps. I also believe it’s a very good strat when faced with these arguments, to go ahead and read RVIS. I will for sure evaluate them if you do it correctly.
I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates because that’s one thing I prided myself in doing fairly effectively. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I’m not proud to say, but I feel fairly underread in phil to be able to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I normally would.
I’ve never been a fan, but if it's what you do and you do it well enough for it to get my ballot then by all means. I wasn’t sure what else to say, so I did some searching and Cameron McConway put it perfectly. “ I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to scepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. [...] I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either; I think the function of arguments should be clear from the time they are read (not saying you cannot use something to take out another argument that it doesn’t appear to interact with- this is about contingent standards).”
Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:
-Racism, sexism or anything that is offensive to anyone
-Belittling someone in round-- also called ad hominems
-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable
-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.
-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one
Please always remember: debate is a safe space and should be treated as one
Things I appreciate:
-Assertiveness (there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive)
-Being true to yourself as an individual, a debater, and an advocate
I was once, told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” I do not believe this is true to an extent, I will give you a 30 if you deserve it. Speaks are about clarity, strategy, and ability to adapt to the room. If you’re a seasoned debater and you go five off on someone who got thrown into varsity, your speaker points may hurt a little, but not enough to hurt you from breaking if I feel like you deserve to break. I average a 27.5-28. If you get a 25 from me then you did something horribly egregious in round, and you should expect it to be on the ballot with some way for your coaching faculty to contact me to discuss it in depth, if they so, please. A 29 means that you did very well, but you made some easily fixable errors.
I hope you find yourself in debate to grow as a person. Be an advocate for something you care about, be true to yourself, and be comfortable saying the important things. Remember, it isn’t always about the ballot, but the message you bring in and out of the round.
A couple of times, I have had people ask if I would be okay with them trying out an unorthodox or new strategy in round. I, always, feel like there has to be a spot for it. I think that if you want to try something out and you want feedback beyond the ballot back, just let me know and I'll be sure to be super extensive and let you know. I want debate to be a learning experience before anything else.
Any other questions feel free to:
Email me: email@example.com
Text me 7..133...14..62......30
Or ask me before the round
This is my second year in College Debate at the University of Houston. I enjoy well-thought-out and substantive arguments. I don't particularly appreciate having to piece the win for either party.
1. Do not talk fast. If I do not follow your argument, I cannot give you points for it. I take notes but do not mistake that for flowing the round and thus start speeding up.
2. In general, I feel that the quality of contentions is more persuasive than quantity.
3. It helps to have Aff to my right and Neg to my left.
4. Please keep time yourselves.
5. I prefer not to give verbal feedback and instead will try to do so via the ballot comments.
*** I wish both teams happy debating - and always, may the best team win!!! ***
I am a speech and debate coach at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing speech and debate in some capacity for 11 years. I am versed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum mostly, but can keep up in a policy round.
You must win the value-value criterion debate in order to win the round. I am a stickler for time management, so make sure you divide your time wisely in each speech to attack each argument with an emphasis on weighing values and value-criterion. I would like Key Voter Issues from both Aff and Neg in their last speeches. I will vote against spreading in an LD round due to auditory processing issues.
I prefer the 1st rebuttal to be fully spent attacking your opponents' case instead of using it to circle back around and re-build. It makes it less confusing. I like clear, offensive voting issues in the final focus.
I can follow a quick policy round, but warn me beforehand. I prefer analytics over cards and/or explaining why one card is better than another with logic or analytics. No "Refer to author B to cross apply to author C and D." I won't follow that because I don't have a photographic memory for evidence. If you're spreading, make sure to say your taglines very clearly or slow down so I can catch them. Provide a clear roadmap before and during each speech. If you do not tell me where to flow something, I will absolutely NOT flow it or vote on it. I prefer a full document for each speech with each argument typed out. I know that's annoying, but it ensures that I can follow your arguments even if they're fast or confusing because I have trouble with auditory processing. I like out of the box arguments if you have constructed them fully. I'd rather listen to something crazy and mentally engaging than the same old thing. I understand 90% of policy terms, but it is more convincing to me if you can explain them in your own words and explain how they play into the debate. It helps your ethos if I know you know what you're talking about.
hi! i'm sky.
email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. don't be late.
tech over truth. i won't do work for you. your arguments should have explicit explanations and contextualization. tell me a thoughtful and thorough story with substance. even if you sound pretty, my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.
read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not your presentation. i'm more than happy to evaluate anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!
do note that the only exception to this philosophy is if you make blatantly ignorant statements.
rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you have any questions regarding my feedback, feel free to ask. i also accept emails and other online messages.
topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interp best facilitates that discussion. if you go for framework, give me clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts.
theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interps and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; give me real links, real interps, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate.
counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give me a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calc is your friend.
disadvantages. crystallize! your uniqueness and links also matter.
kritiques. i love these, a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and provide an anomalous approach against the aff. judge instructions make my life easier and can win you the debate.
cross. i'll listen, but i won't evaluate arguments made in crossfire unless you restate your points in a speech. use this time wisely.
evidence. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you tell me to or if it sounds too good to be true. however, this isn't an excuse to be lazy. narrative coherence is very important to me.
public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. arguments and evidence mentioned in final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!
tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote, thanks.
you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!
I know stuff.
Bio (Completely Irrelevant)
I competed in PF for four years at Hamilton High School (2014-2018). In my senior year I was the captain of the team. I competed a lot on the AZ local circuit, and won/placed at a bunch of tournaments. I also competed a bit on the national circuit (broke boi couldn't afford all the plane tickets in HS), and have dabbled in Policy and Big Questions debate. Finally, I've also competed in the International Public Policy forum and achieved global Top 16 alongside my team. Today, I'm a student studying Computer Science and Physics at ASU.
1. I can comprehend up to 275 words per minute, but my most accurate flowing happens at about 225 words per minute and under. Be smart about your word economy. If you can say it slower and make the same goddamn point just as effectively, do that. Do not sacrifice clarity for "speed" (I say "speed" because when you're messing up so much because you're trying to go faster than you're meant to, your effective speed is actually super slow.) Do not use the Gish gallop, this will annoy me severely.
2. I reserve the right to yell "CLEAR" at any point in the round; if I do, that means something with your speaking isn't working for me and it needs to be fixed; it could be speed, volume, enunciation, slurring, etc. I don't do this to be a jerk, I do it because I actually want to hear what you have to say. However, don't rely on my yelling of "CLEAR" as an absolute metric though, because you might just not be egregious enough for me to say it. If I look confuzzled or like I'm not understanding what's going on, that is likely the case.
3. There are a myriad of references you can make that will bump up your speaker points if they are eloquently incorporated into your speech: PewDiePie, Speedcubing, Lil Uzi Vert, Playboi Carti, Future, Juice WRLD, Eminem, Deadpool, Mr. Robot, or Avatar (NOT the blue aliens one). Saying "Subscribe to PewDiePie" at the end of the speech is no longer novel to me, and I won't count it.
0. As a general rule, cross is for you, not me.
1. I will not judge on what is said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. (I do actually listen though - even if I'm walking around, eating, etc. - unless it's mind-numbing, which happens fairly frequently).
2. Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case, I don't frown on that. Don't be afraid to ask why; at best, their reasoning will be moronic and easy to dismantle, and at worst, we all learn something.
3. Don't go back and forth and waste time during cross. (But depth is awesome and absolutely necessary, don't misconstrue the two).
4. I don't see "my partner will answer this in speech" as a weakness if it's because the idea takes a bit to explain or if you already know your partner will expound on an idea you briefly mention, but I might still smile at it, because it's memey. But if it's a question that you should be able to answer, then that's probably a problem.
5. When someone asks for an explanation of a warrant, "we have a card for that" is not an appropriate answer. This is also true for the round in general, not just CX. ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THINGS; if the answer wouldn't have been satisfying for you then it's likely not satisfying for me either. A card is not a warrant in and of itself.
6. Standing or sitting, don't care. Do a handstand if you want.
7. First speaking team gets the first question, no need to ask, just get into it.
8. Towards the end of cross, y'all can reserve the right to end it if there's nothing to talk about, and just prep instead during that time (for a MAX of thirty seconds) (especially GCX).
1. Please time yourself. I basically always forget, so please keep track of yourselves and each other (that goes for speech AND prep).
2. If you need to verbally let me know your opponent is going over time, that's fine (just give them like 4 seconds of grace period). You can avoid all of the ambiguity by just using a timer that actually goes off at the end of the speech too.
1. Try to get to the round on time (I will too). If you need time in the room to get your stuff together, or pre-flow, I'm totally cool with that, I just don't want to accidentally tell Tabroom you don't exist (same reason I'll try to be there on time). But again, s*** happens, so I'm gonna try not to be annoying about time, as much as possible.
2. I like Aff on my left, Neg on my right. The world will not end if this is not true, however.
3. I’m not uptight; I like a chill vibe in rounds. I like judging rounds where everyone's actually having fun (especially me). Good jokes are great, bad jokes are colossal failures. (If you can make your opponents' argument seem so ridiculous that it's funny, you're probably being quite convincing). I encourage being savage, but in a tasteful-ish manner. Being savage is not the same as being petulant.
4. You can swear, I don’t care. Actually, I'll probably like it, especially if it helps with your rhetorical efficacy.
5. I’d rather not shake hands. Shaking hands with me won’t magically help or hurt your chances of winning, but it could get either of us sick.
1. Signpost everything, for the love of music, video games, Netflix, pets, and parents. I literally don’t know where to put stuff if you don’t signpost (and then I won't write anything, and it'll be your fault).
a. If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to, and what happens to offense as a result.
b. If you're frontlining a response, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to, and what I need to extend as a result of this frontline.
2. Structure responses in a systematic manner, at the least. I really prefer numbered responses in rebuttals and I like numbered frontlines in the summaries and second rebuttals (this makes it easier to reference which response we're talking about at any point).
3. Please extend arguments throughout both Summ/FF speeches consistently, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. However, you don't have to yell "extend" before everything you extend (because that’s annoying), just contextualize the argument and why I should extend it.
4. If you’re not frontlining, you will probably auto-lose the round, because I want to watch an actual debate.
5. I like to have a roadmap before speeches, but it should NOT be flowery. For example: “framework, aff case, neg case.” If you’re doing something weird though, let me know. In most cases, I just want to know which side of the flow we're starting on.
6. There’s no reason to "extend" your own case in rebuttal if "time permits" if you’re the first speaking team. I don’t get why debaters do this, but it’s a waste, and I WILL drop speaker points for this.
7. 2nd rebuttal should address the 1st rebuttal.
8. 1st summary should address the 2nd rebuttal.
9. I’m cool with overviews.
a. If an overview applies to an argument specifically, remind me of the overview and cross apply it.
b. Your overview shouldn’t just be another contention though, that’s not the point.
10. If you read a definition, actually make it useful for your case. "But bro, they didn't have a definition, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.
11. Frameworks can be as important as you make them.
a. If your frameworks agree, just stop mentioning it, I’ll use it.
b. Weighing really helps to solidify a ballot, and a carded weighing analysis can really help with that. Also, you NEED to tell me how to weigh unlike things; it's easy to say $200 million is more than $170 million, but we all know this is rarely how debate functions. If you don't convince me of a way to adjudicate the round, I don't know what the hell to do.
c. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.
12. ALL offense must be in summary.
a. The first summary does not need to include defense unless this defense has been frontlined already.
b. However, turns must be in summary, otherwise they will end up only being terminal defense. (Otherwise it's abusive, the other team needs to know what you're going for).
13. I hate key voters, they obfuscate the round for me. Instead keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially line-by-line, but don't think saying card names aimlessly is going to mean anything, so don't card dump).
14. I GREATLY encourage collapsing. Kick an argument and instead show me why the one you go for is enough for the win. (You can’t kick an argument with a turn on it and expect things to be okay for you though, obviously.)
15. Please verbally label turns explicitly. It really helps me to see how you get offense on your opponent’s case. (Like actually say the word "turn" or something very similar).
16. Don’t give me a specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan).
17. Don’t give me a random alt on the Neg.
18. Please don’t strawman, make sure you respond to the actual arguments your opponents are making. That's the number one way to get me to tune out quickly.
19. K's might not be the best idea because I default to post-fiat impacts. The only way you'll win with a K is if you actually convince ME I should go pre-fiat or your K solves in a post-fiat analysis.
20. I don't flow card names for the most part, so make sure to tell me what the card says.
21. I love creative, innovative, eye-opening, deep arguments that come from another angle. I hate stupid, nonsensical arguments that disguise themselves as novel when they're not. Running one of those will get you yeeted. Logic actually matters, people. (This isn't to say I'm not tabula rasa, I really am very close. The point I'm making is that my threshold for refuting inherently ridiculous arguments is inherently lower than those that actually make sense, so you're handicapping yourself severely within the context of the round by running something we all know is dumb. For example, if the Aff tells me that "elephants are purple" and the Neg responds with "no," I will consider that an effective response. Remember, in the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and if you're giving me less-than-extraordinary evidence, you're screwed, because your opponents are probably smarter than your "argument").
Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. If you want to know how you're doing in a round, look at me, chances are that'll give you some information because my face can be very telling. I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. I will almost always disclose, and I will provide a detailed verbal RFD, which often includes a significant degree of roasting. You can ask me questions after the round about anything, but don't argue with me, because I will submit my ballot before I disclose. Good luck.
Received BA from SUNY at Albany; JD from University of Miami Law School.
I have been judging public forum debate rounds in the south Florida area for several years. My son has been debating on national and local circuit for 4 years now, so I have a good understanding of debate.
I have a basic understanding of public forum debate structure and will do my best to take notes and weigh arguments.
I appreciate clear, moderately paced speakers and well organized arguments.
I value creativity and responsiveness.
Professionalism is really important to me.
I will only call for evidence if it seems to be very important in a round and if I need further clarification on it.
Regarding speaker points, I am pretty generous. The lowest speaker points I've ever given in 4 years of judging is a 26. However, I don't give 30's often.
If you make me laugh in a debate round I will be more inclined to listen.
I am a flow judge, but I am "truth over tech," as the phrase seems to be.
I did seven years of middle and high school debate, graduating HS in 2014. As such, I do flow but I dislike spreading and tactics that come from policy. So, if you make an extinction/nuclear war argument or something like it, you'll have to do a lot of convincing for me to buy it, even if your opponents don't spend a huge amount of time on it.
As I said, I do flow, but I also appreciate weighing and detailed explanations of why one argument or piece of evidence preempts our outweighs another. That style of argumentation matters much more to me than simply extending evidence or an argument.
I am a parent and lay judge.
Please don't speak too fast. I will try to listen to every arguments.
Please weigh your in summary and final focus.
I will vote for whoever is more persuasive.
Be nice and good luck!
Im a lay judge speak slow and give good argumentation.
I need docs to understand and articulate arguments send them to email@example.com
Thanks and I hope for a good debate!
My connection to Debate - Parent of student at Ravenwood High
Years of Experience - 3 years judging PFD
I do take my own notes/flow the debate.
Debaters should make eye contact and speak at normal speeds as opposed to read/speak as fast as possible in order to fit in the most points within their allotted time.
The factors that I usually consider when making my decision on who won/lost the debate is whether the teams made logical/cohesive arguments that reflect/impact the most important points.
I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. You will be responsible for managing time.
In the final focus, I will appreciate clear analysis from you on why you should win. I will disregard any new argument brought up in the Final Focus. I will not do any weighing for you so it will be up to you to weigh your case. I will decide who wins based on the following points:
-Which team outweighs their impact the best
-Which team makes more sense
-Which team's arguments persuade me more to vote for their side
Be polite and have fun!
I did PF for 4 years at Elkins High School
I am not very familiar with progressive arguments so I will not evaluate any theory, tricks, Ks, etc., unless there is a violation in the round that hurts or excludes someone. Even then, I would prefer you point it out to me in paragraph form with a warrant and explanation rather than forcing me to evaluate progressive argumentation. Honestly if you're planning to run these type of arguments, strike me.
Sending me cases prior to the round would be greatly appreciated. If you're gonna spread SEND ME A SPEECH DOC.
If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad
- MUST signpost and weigh
- don’t just card dump in rebuttal without any analysis
- Frontlining turns in second rebuttal is a must
- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability
-If you’re not extending with author name and warrant then wyd
- If you want me to vote off case offense, you have to extend uniqueness - link - impact
- I won’t call for evidence unless the other team tells me to do so. The only time I’ll do it is if that one piece of evidence will win you the round.
- If I end up calling for evidence that you misrepresent/fabricate, you will get L20
-As long as you’re not rude, blatantly cocky, or you start yelling for absolutely no reason - then i got you with speaks don’t trip over it.
Any baby keem reference will get you auto 30 speaks
I am a parent judge.
I prefer slower, narrative debate compared to more technical styles.
I did PF for 4 years in high school, It's been ~3 years since I've done debate and ~2 years since I've judged.
It is probably best to consider me as a flay judge by LD standards. I'm not familiar with the norms of LD at all so I don't have any opinions on the format itself, because of this I don't intuitively have a feeling for if a debater is doing something uneducational/abusive and I'll be more receptive to theory because of this.
If you want to win me over, win the warrant-level debate, I find this is the most important & interesting part of debate that is the most lacking in most rounds.
Read whatever you want and I will give my best attempt to understand the arguments, but keep in mind I have very little experience judging Ks, heavy theory rounds, or nuanced phil, if you want to make those arguments, please put extra effort warranting them.
tech>>truth, I try extremely hard not to intervene. The only exception this is that I'll be more receptive to arguments that are explained better (sorry about this :( - not familiar with LD)
please don't assume I know any literature
speed is fine, just signpost
IF YOU ARE EXCESSIVELY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(s) I WILL OBLITERATE YOUR SPEAKS
I am a parent judge. Here is a list of my preferences (written by my son but endorsed by me).
- Enunciate well and don't speak quickly! If I can't understand you I won't evaluate what you are saying.
- Don't use any progressive arguments like theory kritiks etc.
- Truth over tech. It's more important to have realistic impacts than large ones predicated on very unlikely link chains.
- Don't actively deceive. If the evidence presented is obviously false or is proven to be misrepresented or falsified by your opponent I will drop that argument and possibly the debater in extreme situations.
- Be persuasive!!! Keep me interested not monotone.
- Don't be offensive. Any bigoted comments about race, sex, religion, gender etc. will result in a loss.
*******The debate is a competition, but it's also an opportunity to have fun and learn. Please have fun and be kind and courteous.*********
I did PF in high school and enjoyed it. There is nothing, in particular, I want to see in a round besides both sides respecting the other. I will vote based on the logic presented in the round, and if there ends up not being any presented in the round, I will default on my own-- this includes weighing. If you don't weigh for me, I will 100% vote based on what makes sense, meaning if you give me an "out there" argument, you better make me feel its worth voting on. Please don't spoon feed me BS and ultimately make the debate unproductive for everyone.
LMK before round if there is anything I can do to make the debate better for you.
email for case: firstname.lastname@example.org
Spread: any speed is fine
Any theory shells or kritiks need to be explained thoroughly
Love a good framework that promotes clash
Highly value impact calculus in the 2NR and 2AR
Love a good cp with a upstanding disad
Don't even bother reading a kaff if you can't explain every word of it
Keep it topical, don't wanna have to connect the dots with some sketchy links
No ghost extensions
Will give good speaks unless you say something stupid or insensitive
Keep arguments topical
Love a good framework
Clear argumentation and clash
sketchy links are a no go, I'd rather you read a stock argument than try to make it work
No ghost extensions
Line by line > Big Picture
Weigh both sides in the final summary and convince the hell out of me why your argument stands
Will give good speaks unless you say something stupid or insensitive
For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.
For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.
I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.
2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).
It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.
I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.
After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.
I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.
When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.
Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).
I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.
I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).
- Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.
I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.
You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.
By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.
I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).
Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.
For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.
The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).
If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.
“We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.
For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.
Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.
Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.
I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.
Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.
From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.
A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.
I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.
Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.
Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).
Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.
I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.
Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.
Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.
I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.
For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.
Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.
Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.
Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.
Performance (the other critique):
Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.
However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.
If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.
I have never debated before. I’ve actively judged a few debates. I don’t like speed and would prefer well-organized and presented debates. I will most likely vote on weighing. Clash is good as long as it is easy to understand and follow.
I judge as if I were someone who reads the Economist/The Times twice a week and watches CNN or Bloomberg News on occasion. With that being said--content needs to be explained clearly and developed deeply. When it comes to the traditional argumentative structure (Claim, Warrant, Impact) you should spend about 10% of your energy on the first, 20% of your energy on the second, and 70% of your energy on impact analysis.
The constructive should be delivered clearly with frequent eye contact. The rebuttal can be line-by-line or big picture. I have no specific preference but if you are grouping arguments I need to know why those ideas can be responded to at once. As for summary speeches and final focuses should be more big picture speeches on the main topics discussed in the round. Clarity is still very important.
Please be respectful during crossfire. Nothing is accomplished through sass, anger, and talking over one another.
If sources become a major point of contention in the round, I will weigh the credibility of source A over the credibility of source B so either explain why one is more credible/preferred or I will have to make that decision myself.
Any other questions should be asked before the beginning of the round.
Principle > practical. I need to know why one way of thinking is preferred over another.
I am a tabula rasa judge meaning the most important thing in the round is a clear explanation of why a certain theory/philosophy/guiding principle is the best way for a person to act.
I am comfortable with speed--I just ask that you vocally signal when something you say is particularly important (i.e. a tagline or an important sentence from a card).
All other questions can be asked before the round.
I judge extemp based on the following characteristics listed in order of importance: developed, well thought out content; clarity and confidence of the speaker; accurate, credible sources of information; a variety of sources (both outlets for news and types of information); physical presentation (if you are a person with a disability that impact how you move/speak please let me know before the round if you feel comfortable so that I don't unjustly and unconsciously hold that against you); creative approaches to the topic.
If you have specific questions or the event I am judging is not above, ask about those specifically before the round if you would like to receive those paradigms.
Hello, I'm Trevor and I am a College Freshmen. In High School Debate I competed in PF, World Schools, and Domestic Extemp.
I'll just list some points of interest to me.
1) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.
2) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks.
3) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.
4) If you are a Worlds Debater, make sure you actually take Points of Information.
5) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I won't have a ton of sympathy if you disagree with my decision.
6) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.
7) Make sure you explain your arguments rather than just dumping cards
8) If you are debating PF, be sure to have a framework.
Feelings |------------------------------------------X| Dead inside
Policy |-----------X-------------------------------| K
Tech |---X--------------------------------------| Truth
Read no cards |-----------X---------------------| Read all the cards
Conditionality good |----------X-------------------| Conditionality bad
States CP good |----------X--------------------------| States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing |---------X-------------------| Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL |---------------X----------------| Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most |---------------------------X--------| Link matters most
Fairness is a thing |-------------X--------------------------| Delgado 92
Try or die |X-----------------------------------------| What's the opposite of try or die
Not our Baudrillard |-----------------------------X---------| Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity |X--------------------------------------------| Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Limits |-------------------------X--------------------------| Aff ground
Presumption |---------------------X-----------| Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face |----------------X--------------| Grumpy face is your fault
Longer ev |------------X--------------------------| More ev
"Insert this rehighlighting" |--------------------------------------X-| I only read what you read
Reverse voters are a thing |--------------------------------------X| Spare me
Fiat solves |-------X---------------------------------| LOL someone messes w/ your aff
CX about impacts |-------------------------X--------| CX about links and solvency
Who is this Zizek guy |-----X-------------------------| The Phenomenology is my bedside novel
Experience: HS - backwoods regional debate, mostly LD a little PF. College - Policy, 2 years at GMU
I do the flowing thing. I go off the flowing thing.
No disclosure is also dumb. Email me after if you want comments.
My pen is down when my timer goes off.
No I don't want to shake your hand. Sorry.
There is not a world in which underviews are good nor will you convince me there is a world in which underviews are good.
Debate is a game and it should be fun. I'll vote on anything that's not an -ism. Below are just my predispositions that are subject to change.
A lot of people like to outsource violence (oppression, etc.) to other countries when there are a lot to pull from and use in the U.S. Be creative. Many people's struggle and oppression did not end with the Revolutionary War and Civil War despite what the history books try to tell you. Debate is also educational, so educate everyone in the room.
If you show me your fluffy animal, preferably in a sentient format, I will increase speaker point by 0.1 or whatever the equivalent step is for your tournament.
The following will result in a 0-0.5 increase or decrease in speaks
1) Quoting from the band The Wanted.
2) Referring to President Dude in an invalidating manner throughout the ENTIRE debate
Thoughts on progressive: Look to policy. Inserting RVIs and conflating T/Theory will make for a pissy Beth. Don't ask people to delete files you flashed them. That's too extra.
Value/Value Criterion: Need to link to contentions. Obvi. Just the lens on how I should evaluate the round. Conceding this won't lose you the round.
Definitions/Observations: If you're going to talk about it, be self-serving about it.
Contentions: This is where most of the debate is. Everyone seems to be saying the same arguments. Be creative with your argumentation here.
Cross-ex: Make an effort to not look at each other. Please. I don't flow this. CX is binding.
Road maps/Line by Line: Stolen from Sean Colligan. "Debate is a journey and a journey is helped by signpost and roadmaps. Could you imagine trying to find this building without any signpost or roadmaps, it would be chaos."
If email chain: email@example.com
I don't run prep for email/flashing. Don't abuse it. If it takes too long I'll start the timer at my discretion but I'll do you the courtesy of letting you know.
Topic research? What's that? 2A's for life.
T: Default to reasonability. If you didn't get to read a stupid process CP it's nbd but if you lost a core of the topic DA then the aff probably isn't T. If you're running spec args set it up in CX otherwise CX checks. Slow down and show me where the clash is.
Theory: Sans condo, reject the arg not the team. But a dropped theory arg is a dropped theory arg. Can't say I'm the best judge on theory. It would be really helpful if you would slow down and do line by line rather than read block your coach wrote five years ago. You get two conditional worlds and the status quo until the 2NR, otherwise I'm pretty convinced by condo bad.
FW: I understand more now as a judge than I ever did as a debater. I was mostly in policy v. policy debates. Take this as you will
CP: Process/Delay,etc. CP's are stupid. Any other CP is a great way to solve the aff. Planks probably shouldn't be conditional. Solvency deficits and perms are ways to my heart. Judge kicking seems cheating but if the 2A doesn't say anything about it then the 2A isn't very good at their job.
DA: While DAs are important, I think it's getting harder and harder to win with just a DA. Links and impact calc are the most important here. I won't not vote on UQ overwhelms
Case: Case almost always gets try or die so if your favorite 2NR is DA and case you should put some link turns on case otherwise it's an uphill battle for you. A lot of 2NRs seem to forget that case is a thing. Most K's don't work without some defense on case.
K: The extent of my k lit are the cards I read in round. From a truth perspective, the K probably links to the aff and the impacts are probably true, but the alt just seems to be some sort of circle jerk. I'd like to think that my ballot does something and I'm not sure if thinking away the patriarchy actually does anything.
K/Performance AFFs: Do your thing and I will try my best to follow. I lean policy. If you can't adequately explain your AFF by the end of the round its your fault. New debaters just don't know debate well enough to say why debate is bad. Young debaters for the most part do not have a solid grasp to debate these affs well.
CX: I don't flow it unless I catch something important. CX is binding. If knowing that I don't flow CX is a reason that you start making things up that will make for a very angry Beth and will reflect in your speaker points.
Random thoughts I didn't know where to put but might be important: Impact turns are da bomb and I love to watch them. The more outlandish the better. Dedev is love. Dedev is life. If you concede 1AC advs and go for a straight turn DA that is not severance.
I evaluate the round similarly to my policy paradigm, happy to answer any questions before round. Below are things I would like to (not) see happen in the round
Strategy. Going for arguments/impacts/scenarios that your opponent dropped and contextualizing it to the round is the best thing you can do. Too often debaters don’t notice dropped/under covered arguments and it’s super frustrating for me bc I already see my ballot written. If you go for harder arguments you’ve made your job harder and mine so now I’m less happy.
Analysis. I guess it’s called weighing but please do this! Depth > breadth. The more you can contextualize your debate for me, the easier it is to write my ballot.
Time keeping. There should be a timer running at all times, whether it’s prep, cross, or speech. This also means you need to time literally everything not only to keep everyone responsible but also to make sure round/tournament run on time. If at any point you have to ask or are asked “are you running prep” “is anyone keeping time” then someone fucked up
General niceties. I don’t care for them AT ALL and teams that really lean into it honestly piss me off. I get it’s PF or whatever, but I don’t really like it. I’ll list somethings that irk me and why.
A) Introducing yourself and team. For the love of god your speech is already so short, just get to the substance. I promise I will not vote for/against you bc you did/not introduced yourself. If it doesn’t count towards the ballot, it doesn’t matter. If you do it during your speech, I’ll be mad bc I don’t think your using your time strategically. If you do it before your speech your adding more time to the round that I cannot wait to get out of.
B) Roadmaps. Love a good roadmap, but your roadmap should be something along the lines of “aff case, neg case. I’ll be starting on x argument”. anything more than that and you’re wasting everyone’s time.
C) Saying things like “I’d like to take prep time” or anything that signals you’re asking me to use your time. It’s weird. It’s your time. Idc how you use it. Take ownership of your time.
D) Normalize “is anyone not ready” before speeches and “you ready” for cross. This is especially important for online environment where verbal cues are a less common. Things like “is my judge ready” really bother me.
E) This is a catch all. Do not involve me into your debate anymore than I have too. I’m here to evaluate arguments, nothing more. Please ask questions before your debate that you think will help you but once the timer starts I’m chilling.
F) This doesn't mean you get to be mean. Filter out what is and is not necessary.