Washington Warrior Invite NIETOC Bid
2020 — Sioux Falls - Online, SD/US
PF Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity.
Policy: I consider myself a policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.
Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that did require the creation of Public Forum. The speed of today's public forum feels a lot like regional debate in the Dakota's in the 1980's, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep us from tipping over the edge in PF.
I outlined my thought on judging policy above.
Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand in PF debate. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage on many judge's ballots. Finally, but importantly, weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution.
I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception of issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. Instead of droning on like most other speakers on a typical weekend, find a way to be unique and memorable. These qualities are not quite as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, but they are often the difference maker in a close round of debate. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy.
I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution in many parts of the country. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weight the competing values and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. I need help connecting philosophy to your connections -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner.
On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5-6. In policy debate, on a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be about a 4-5. Quite open to topicality, a little less to counterplans, and challenging to get my ballot if your entire case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments.
I vote on clear narratives, well warranted contentions, and terminalized impacts. I will do no work for you in terms of extending arguments through the flow, and I have a hard time voting for arguments that do not evolve throughout the round (don't just tell me to extend an argument from case, tell me why your opponents attack on it is mute and justify me extending it). I won't drop teams for being rude but you will make it harder for me to sign my ballot your way. Avoid spreading if you can, I'll flow it but it comes down to a quality vs quantity issue for me, make sure the arguments being made are good not plenty. Most importantly, please, do not lie, I have no tolerance for it.
"There's only one thing I hate more than lying: skim milk. Which is water that's lying about being milk." -Ron Swanson
I am new to speech and debate so I am learning!
I'm not the best at flowing yet so I appreciate it when teams speak at a pace that allows me to keep up!
To all debaters:
If you have any questions, let me know before the round begins.
Please be respectful in the round. Overly aggressive questioning, condescension, or insulting behavior will be commented on the ballot for your coaches to see. It may not affect the outcome of the round, but it's very important nonetheless.
Public Forum paradigm:
I am a PF coach and did PF in high school, so I am very familiar with this form of debate.
Beware running squirrel framework, I'm unlikely to be convinced unless it is well-justified or the opponent fails to point out its abusiveness/inaccuracies/etc.
For summary, I prefer line-by-line and then impacts at the bottom.
I like voters and impacts in the final speech - line-by-line is a bit rushed for 2 minutes.
Speed is okay - don't speak faster than I can understand you. If you are stumbling over words and not being concise that will not help you.
I am unfamiliar with Ks in PF. If you run a K, you have to explain it well.
In terms of what I look for in a win, if you cover all points on the flow and make a stronger case for/against the resolution that is a sure win. A stronger case for/against essentially means that taking all the evidence together that has been introduced AND extended throughout the round, one side is preferable to the other.
I did not do LD in high school but I am a philosophy major in college and have judged LD several times, so I understand discussion of value/criterion and philosophers. But, of course, make sure to explain the value/criterion well.
That being said, I would stick to more "traditional" LD arguments since I'm not as familiar with LD.
Value/criterion do matter more than contention-level, but I expect both to be covered effectively. It is especially important to win contention-level if you concede to your opponent's value/criterion.
Line-by-line argumentation works best for me.
Speed- same as PF.
I was in policy debate for two years and varsity public forum for the last two of my high school career. I was also heavily involved in oral interp which means speaker performance is going to matter to me.
Make it a clean debate, sign post, and clash is always fun!
I default cost-benefit analysis
I'm not going to vote on framework unless you bring it up in your first speech, carry it through, and explain your reasoning. Do not bring it up in your first speech, drop it, and then argue it in your final focus because it will not be in my RFD or on my flow at that point.
I flow the round and will mainly vote on the flow. Please signpost! It makes the debate easier to follow for everyone in the room.
Please weigh your arguments throughout the round.
If you're extending in the summary or rebuttal, please don't just say "extend Vlasman '18" and expect me to remember the content of that card and what argument it's supporting. That card is attached to a subpoint and it will make my flow much cleaner if you extend, explain the card and why it supports your argument.
If you don't extend your argument, it's dropped from the flow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Be professional, you can be polite when asking questions and also hold your opponent to an answer. I pay attention to how you present yourself when interacting with the other team and won't hesitate to knock off speaker points if you go out of line for no discernible reason. Be kind, we're all here for some good clash.
FFs and Summaries:
I'm a total voters judge. This will matter especially in final focuses. Clash and line-by-lines I can work with up to the summaries but by then you should be explaining to me as a judge what the key arguments of the round were and why you as a team are winning them.
Content is incredibly important and I can handle techy arguments.
But at the same time, I will pay attention to your speaker style and how you present your arguments and it will impact your speaker points. However, I won't heavily dock you unless you are abusive in round, commit an evidence violation, or are overtly rude to your opponent.
I most likely won't disclose but always feel free to ask questions.
I did speech and debate at Watertown High School and graduated in 2020.
I was a varsity policy debater my sophomore year. I then became a varsity public forum debater, winning State Runner Up my junior year and then State Semi Finalist senior year. I've done a variety of speech events but most notably I've qualified for Nationals in humor and duo and have won State Superiors in readers theater, storytelling, and duo. I was the AA State Champion in domestic extemp my senior year.
I'm currently a junior Public Relations and Corporate Communciation student at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Feel free to email me with any questions at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate should be an educational and communicative activity. I look for debaters that can discuss the topic with intelligence and honesty. Any attempts to play games with my emotions or my sentiments will get very low marks on the ballot. Debate the topic and do so with integrity, this is my expectation.
Shanley High School
This is my 6th year coaching and judging Public Forum.
Make sure you are speaking clearly and enunciating. Moderate speed is fine as long as your speech is clear. Be respectful of everyone in the round.
Specify the voter issues; main arguments in today's debate, why you won, why they lost, and why your impact outweighs theirs. I use your voters and the flow to choose a winner.
I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.
I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.
My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.
Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.
It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.
It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.
-My first priority is ensuring that debate is an inclusive activity. Provide trigger warnings if what you are running is triggering. Use common sense. Racist, sexist, homophobic cases.. just don't run them
- avoid circular framework debate, i.e "my framework is a pre-req to their framework." "no, MY framework is a pre-req to THEIRS."
-I debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for Brookings High School in South Dakota. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.
- I hate "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments
- LIMIT jargon.
- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar with the literature so you'll have to explain it well.
- Not a fan of pointless theory. Please don't run theory unless there is actual abuse.
-The round is yours, do what you like but just be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.
- Don't use pointless buzzwords if what your saying has no substance. I can tell when you're not saying anything at all but rather just throwing words out there for the sake of saying them
Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.
Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.
Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.
I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.
Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.
In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.
On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.
Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.
Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.
Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win.
World School: New to event, but have had students compete on college level and help guide. Currently coaching our team and have done research on the international level about the event.
I am a parent judge so please speak slowly and clearly.
I can only judge on the points that I can understand.
I weight the points and evaluate the logic in arguments, being supported by valid evidence. I prefer clarity in speaking, in moderate speed; going too fast cannot guarantee me follow therefore possibly not allowing me to vote for you. I expect the speakers to know what they are talking about, and express their arguments with confidence. I am not a fan of speakers reading texts throughout the whole process on their notes or computer files. Time control wise, I expect the debate to flow on time and would not like to see activities/behaviors that stop or delay the process (prep time is fine). Being respectful is also important to me.
I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.
-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.
-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.
-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.
-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.
- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.
-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.
-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.
If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)
I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.
I debated varsity public forum for three years and policy for one year at Aberdeen Central in Aberdeen, South Dakota. I'm currently a freshman at South Dakota State University studying Political Science. My preferred pronouns are he/him/his.
As far as judging goes, I'm pretty straight forward. I strongly dislike technical jargon often used by circuit debaters; I find it to be too fluffy and used as a tool to confuse other team. With that being said, you can use technical jargon, but do so in a way that isn't to the detriment of the other team and observers in the round. Everyone needs to understand your arguments/speeches. Along the same lines, I enjoy watching debate with good clash and argument. However, there is a line between being assertive and being downright pushy and rude. I will dock speaks if you cross that line.
With respect to the actual public forum debate round, I do like a certain format.
Constructive: I don't love definitions but I can stand them if they are short. Framework is very helpful and appreciated. Also, I like clarity with specific contentions and taglines. For example, "Contention 1 is ......, Contention 2 is ......, etc." Your case should be clear with warrants and impacts. If your case is hard to understand and I have to work at finding the warrants and impacts, you're unlikely to get my vote.
Rebuttal: I like a road map so please use one. When attacking an opponents case, do so specifically. For example say, "On my opponents 1st Contention of...., we have x number of responses." I also like when debaters can cross apply arguments from their own case on the rebuttal.
Summary: Do not over complicate the summary. Boil down the bigger picture argument(s) you and your partner are making. Tell me why your team has been winning thus far in the round. A road map is appreciated but not mandatory.
Final Focus: In two or three points, tell me why you've won the round. Here again, I like to hear warrants and impacts to what your argument is. DO NOT BRING UP DROPPED ARGUMENTS- at this point, I will not weigh them.
Evidence: If you'd like to call for opponents evidence and look over it, I will not run prep (unless you're looking at it forever).
Others: Please do not try and run things under absurd theories, counter plans, etc. I'm not going to listen.
If there is ANYTHING that is unclear or you have questions, please feel free to ask!
I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.
I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.
Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.
I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.
Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. And please don't use off-the-clock roadmaps. 'Fancy' frameworks won't gain you any points, nor will off-the-wall cases.
Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.
LD--I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, clarity of thought, and organization. Please don't spend the entire round debating value/criterion/framework; your contentions count too!
I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the Rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable.
I more than welcome you to use your speech time to advocate for any issues you believe in and to educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the ballot for that.
I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or you have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting.
When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy looking face. Don’t think I am in disagreement with what you are saying because of this.
In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their own case. If you are able to actually defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. If time allows and you are able to do so, I wouldn’t mind a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech. On the same note, if the other team does drop key arguments on case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.
For the final focus, you should select two or three main voting issues. The last 15-20 seconds of the speech should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that works better for you.
Roadmaps are off the clock for me
If you ask me to call for evidence for it to be evaluated, I will.
Please don't try and avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. I believe evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate, try to be as upfront as possible.
I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground, and someone who is using rudeness as a way to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.
Policy-I have debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Policy maker.
LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.
Hello. I have been involved as a judge for speech and debate for the past 10 years. I debated in LD and Policy in high school and briefly participated in Parliamentary Procedure in college.
The debate round is your time to demonstrate argumentive and speech skills to convince me of your case. I will evaluate the round as I am told to, but I need the debaters to close for a specific way for me to evaluate the round. If I am not told how to judge the round, I will default as a policymaker judge and evaluate that way.
A few things to consider for arguments:
I am cool with procedural debate to an extent, but I need clear evidence that there was a violation and that there is a specific rule in the handbook that was violated for me to vote on it.
I will vote on T if Neg can prove case is not topical. On the flip side, Aff can totally run a non-topical case if they are really good at arguing through T. If Neg closes for T with an a priori voter and doesn't address the T first, I assume they don't believe in the argument and I'll throw it out of the round.
Aff should have a prima facia case (debate 101 with Paul Harens here). It drives me crazy when the 1AC completes the case without ever reading Inherency and everyone in the room ignores it like it didn't happen. I've voted on Gap Inherency so many times when it is proven in round to be the case.
Disads and CPs are the bread and butter of policy debate in my mind. Not every scenario should lead to extinction, but some do. Nuke war is just another hyperbole, but it lets us discuss the best way to address the harms presented by the case and weigh the solvency of case. If we go for a policymaker decision, please use impact calc to give me a clear reason to vote the round.
I don't live in the debate world. I am just a person that enjoys participating in the activity and watching students grow into great communicators. That said, I am probably out of the loop on the hottest lit for the K right now. I'll listen to it, but the theory and the narrative need to be consistent and clear for me to evaluate. If I get confused on how to interpret it, communication broke down and I am not wholly responsible.
I will vote presumption if Neg calls for it; however, I will need to be convinced that there is no net-solvency to pass plan to do so.
Couple other notes:
I still contribute to killing trees at tournaments, so don't assume that I'll have a laptop to take a copy of case and not flow the round.
Speed is cool with me to an extent. I probably have a tolerance of 6.5 on a scale 1-10. Look, I like some of that Sound Cloud mumble rap out there, but I don't really like mumble speed reading. Be fast, but be clear. I also like to stay organized, so please slow down on signposting and tagging so that I can keep with the debate on my flow.
It is okay to ask for post-round comments, but I will tell you if I feel like disclosing or not. If I tell you I am not going to, don't try to push for it. It won't work.
Experience: I competed in Public Forum for 6 years in North Dakota and am a past state champion in this event and a national qualification. Additionally, I competed on the National Circuit sparingly for 4 years. I competed in Extemp for 5 years in North Dakota/South Dakota and competed in International Extemp at the national tournament for 3 years. Lastly, I competed in Congress for 3 years but only at the local level (ND).
Judging PF: I'm looking for a good, clean round of debate. Be polite, act with class, and don't lose your cool. The team that extends the most impacts of their own and turns, delinks, disproves, or indicts the other teams will win the round 99 times out of 100 for me. I can keep up with nearly any speed but if you are going to talk fast please be experienced enough to enunciate. Truth is king, I don't believe tech should exist. Solvency won't win you the round. I strongly believe that solvency doesn't have a place in Public Forum because it is impossible to solve. If you can solve for poverty, war, climate change, etc. in a 45-minute round, I will personally fly you to the UN and you can go solve it. Extend the impacts, use logic and sources to disprove, persuade me. OFF THE CLOCK ROAD MAPS DONT EXIST. IF YOU START TALKING I START THE TIMER. I don't flow crossfire so if you want to garner offense from it, bring it up in a speech.
Judging LD: I have much less experience in LD however I still know what the basis of the event is. I am still looking for a clean round here too. Solvency doesn't exist in this event either. There's a reason a policy round is 90 minutes long. You cannot solve a moral/ethical issue with real-world implications in your 6-minute speech in a 45-minute debate round. Impacting is still king here. Sources are not as important but the clearer you pull them through the flow the more offense you have the opportunity to gain. I NEED a Value/Criterion Clash. Whoever wins this usually wins my ballot but can be swayed if both sides concede to the same V/C or if one side better upholds both V/C without a clear winner on the clash itself.
Judging Speech: If you're in a more rigid event, i.e. either extemp, inform, oratory, etc. keeping it light or incorporating comedic relief is great. Keeps the judge happy and engaged. Other events I take at face value.