The Longhorn Classic Online
2020 — Austin, TX/US
Public Forum Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
PF: I only think an email chain is necessary if audio is not the best or you plan on spreading. Email me if there is any way I can make the round more accessible.
I am a third-year student at the University of Georgia. I did four years of PF at Columbus High School, and one year of policy at UGA.
Policy: I am still learning policy myself, so please take that into account if I am your judge. I will always try my best to make the best decision and I am way more comfortable with DA's and CP's than K's. Just do not expect the same out of me as you would a regular policy judge :)
1. In terms of speed, I can comfortably handle around 250-270 wpm. Online debate might not allow that speed, keep that in mind. I don’t really see the need for spreading, but if you do, ask your opponents and send a speech doc. If you do this to confuse them and win, I will drop you.
2. No judge will get everything you say, so warrant.
3. I am a huge lover of puns. Wit and puns are appreciated in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach immediately. Assertive and funny debaters are different from rude ones.
In short, you do not want me to interfere as a judge. Do the work for me and that means to make clean extensions, frontline, and weigh. In detail, here are things that win my ballot:
1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. In that case, you probably won't like my decision. I will do everything I can to ensure a fair round from my part but don't get mad at me if I don't flow a one-second extension that isn't flushed out.
2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands. If they extend their warranted response(s) throughout round and you do not respond to it, you are in a bad position.
3. Signposting is extremely helpful and should be done :) I RARELY flow author names so do not just extend "Smith 19" and think that is you extending something. I should hear what Smith 19 said over and over.
4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.
5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format (though line-by-line is better to me). Create the narrative, defend, extend, weigh. New weighing in both summaries is fine.
6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF). There really shouldn't be any new arguments in 2nd summary.
7. I am not your judge for theory, K's, topicality, etc. I have voted for these things before, and am understanding them as a policy debater. BUT reading theory against a team who doesn't know how to deal with it is abusive.
8. I use cross to write feedback, so anything said is not binding, just bring it up in a speech because I probably didn’t listen. Use cross strategically and for your own benefit.
1. I do not require defensive extensions in first summary if they have not been responded to. However, you must extend overviews/turns if you expect me to be voting off of them.
2. By final focus, you should know what your opponents are going for. Defensive extensions must be in final focus if you want them to factor into my decision. Defense not responded to by the second-speaking team by second-summary is dropped defense - bring it up!
1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns/disads. The only other time second- speaking team has time to respond is second summary, and that is extremely abusive. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round. To clarify - if the rebuttal does not have to answer all terminal defense, the summary obviously must, or I will consider it dropped.
2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond. Also, this is not your chance just to extend through ink because no one will be able to call you out on it.
1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and available almost immediately (30 seconds is reasonable time) within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.
2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you and your speaks. I am very very okay with cards that are paraphrased as long as they are not misused (feel free to have this argument with me)
3. I like logical responses just as much as I like carded responses. But just like a carded response, logic should make sense and be warranted. The card does half the work, do the other half and apply it in round.
Otherwise, if you have any questions, please ask me or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org ! Debating is supposed to be an educational, motivational, and fun experience so make the most of it! I will always disclose and give feedback if the tournament allows me.
Good Luck :)
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
PF Paradigm at the top, LD at the bottom. I approach the events in a completely different manner. I wouldn't apply what is in the PF paradigm to LD.
I am a coach that has been involved with debate for a while. At the most basic level, I will evaluate the impacts students have access to at the end of the round using the weighing/framing mechanisms provided. You should be weighing in the back half of the round. Here are some notes about the details.
-I am listening but not flowing crossfire. While I'm not voting on anything that is said here, I am judging your knowledge of the important args and the topic in general.
-I am not tab. The best description of my judging style is a critic of argument. I want to vote for the best debaters, and to that end, I feel this activity is at its best when students explain warrants. I will vote on consequential drops, but I almost never vote on unwarranted blippy claims, even if they are carded. So for instance, if Smith 20 says "the economy will crash in two months," and that is the end of the story; for the purposes of the round I am not assuming the economy will crash in two months. You need to explain why Smith thinks that and contextualize its importance within the round. If Smith doesn't give a reason you are comfortable explaining, or you don't understand why Smith thinks that, this argument should not effect the RFD. My bar for a warrant that I will accept is very low(often I disagree with the warrant but still accept it), but the bar does exist. Just give me something that makes sense. The top competitors warrant and do all this naturally, so I don't think a lot of adapting should be going on.
-I prefer a brisk but understandable pace in the rebuttal/summary speeches, offense in the FF needs to be clearly extended (preferably weighed) throughout.
-I view debate as a game that teaches essential skills, and will vote for the students that in my opinion win the game. Using offensive arguments or not respecting the dignity of your opponents will lead to you losing the game.
-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on theory. I am ok with paraphrasing but prefer direct quotations. I do not expect disclosure (full text or otherwise).
-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on a non-topical K. There is a zero percent chance I will vote for a K that links into the topic in general. If the K has a strong link into the opponents advocacy, I will consider it, but probably still vote against it.
-Defense is not sticky.
-You should frontline in 2nd Rebuttal.
-Sell terminal defense, I have a higher bar for granting access to the impact then a lot of judges.
-There is no reason for a plan or CP.
-I don't like politics DAs, in policy rounds they work as a net benefit to a CP decently, but as independent offense in PF I think it is poor in general. The only way I'm voting on it is if it the other team severely mishandles it or has no offense I can comfortably vote on.
-If you want to see cards have the names ready and say them immediately after the speech. The 1st speaker for each team should be ready and adept at sending cards. I am not ok with a stream of asking for cards one after the other stretching out the time. The PF round should end in roughly an hour.
The PF paradigm above doesn't apply very much here. I debated LD in high school, but that was a long time ago. In LD, I'm resigned to being tab and voting on execution. I will try my best to reward the better debater, so if you can go fast and clear that is good.
I prefer debate on the topic and I view this activity as a game, so my natural inclination is to expect the resolution to grant both sides with ground, although the specifics can be debated. In general, I don't like to vote on blippy drops. I rarely vote for non-topical affs. Framework debate is ok and I will vote for the debater that executes their style the best. I enjoy judging debates with clash, and reward developed arguments which clearly link to the core issues of the resolution. I will vote for Plans, CPs, DAs, Ks, Theory, and framework. You are not winning the round in cross.
I don't have a problem with speed, but if I can't understand what your saying I will not connect the dots for you. A brisk speech that is clean is preferable to a faster pace in which words are mumbled and there are many noticeable stumbles. I keep a detailed flow and if an argument is dropped it matters. I like to hear voters during the final speeches.
firstname.lastname@example.org please add me to email chains
from planet debate-
this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.
topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.
cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.
das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.
critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.
others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.
Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.
Debated for Liberty University in Policy Debate for a year and a half
Email - email@example.com - I don't need docs unless you're spreading/going fast. If you aren't sure if you'll be too fast, send me the docs.
1. Speed - I'm down for fast speaking - however fast you go I'll probably be fine for - but if you start spreading full speed and the other team doesn't you'll probably get voted down. Talking fast is fine, but this is not policy debate - focus more on persuasion and quality args.
2. Tech > Truth - If one team consistently says something throughout the debate and the other doesn't respond, I'm gonna vote like it's true. There's a brightline there where the more ridiculous the argument, the more skeptical I am of it and the more work you'll have to do. Examples of this are arguments like spark (nuclear war good), where if both sides are debating it well, I'm more likely to default to nuke war bad. De-dev has a lower threshold and I'm pretty willing to vote on it, as well as other turns (especially prolif good, I'vs gone for that several times). If you are good at going for it, read the argument. I will vote on it. If you are not good at it, it's a bad idea to read it in front of me.
3. Warrants - Your goal at the end of the debate should be for me to do as little intervention as possible and be able to point to the specific reason why I thought something was true that was actually in the debate rather than do work for one side or another. Make your claim (if X policy continues that will be bad because it'll hurt the economy) then give me some warrants (X scholar talks about how Y policy that's similar did the same thing, Z factors are similar between the two policies and surrounding context, and here is some additional logic and experts that agree) and I'll be a happy judge. Logical arguments are pretty good, sources are best, but good logic can beat sources and vice versa. I won't vote on dropped claims - claims absent warrants are not arguments, just opinions.
4. Weigh - Compare arguments at a top-level outside of the frame of who is winning what argument, then tell me how I should evaluate things if you win a couple of key arguments, as well as what happens if you don't win them. You can lose most of the debate and win on impact weighing.
5. Judge instruction - tell me how things interact. Weighing/Impact calc is a form of that, but tell me what the effects of you winning an argument are. Sure, you're winning China will steal any technology the US makes, but why do I care? What argument of theirs does it implicate, why, and if that's true what does that mean for the debate? This is one of the more advanced levels of debate, but mastering it will make you go far because you leverage your arguments a lot better. You'll be mad if I tell you at the end of the debate you were winning part of the debate that should have implicated another part but I didn't give it to you. Do the work for me.
6. Have fun! - At the end of the day I love debate. If you love it and show it, I'll be more interested in your arguments and be a better judge for you. Additionally, the more you enjoy debate, the more you'll learn and engage. Also, don't be a dick.
7. Ask Questions! - I love to talk about my opinions, you probably love to learn, it's a perfect match! Ask me what I thought about an argument, what I think you could/should do to get better. If you don't know what to ask that's fine! Tell me that, or say something like "can you just tell me your thoughts about X?" The more specific your questions, the better I know how to answer them and the more you'll get from the debate. If you need to ask several questions before you can finally articulate the one you want, go for it!
- I'm decent for K's you just have to warrant them. Throwing around buzz words neither I nor the other team understands won't get you anything.
- I'll default neg on presumption if there's no offense unless there are sufficient args otherwise.
- If an argument the other team is running is abusive, go for theory. I'm more likely to reject the arg rather than the team, but give me good reasons and I'll listen if I think you're right.
- In-Depth debate is better than spread out debate. The team that collapses arguments down to a core faster is almost always the team that wins.
- Because I'm a policy debater I don't know all the procedurals of debate, so if something is done in the debate that should affect my decision (striking args off my flow because an arg was new in the summary etc) you'll have to do a little work for me.
- Do what you're best at. Paradigms matter less the better you are (though definitely don't ever ignore them).
Ardrey Kell '20 | UNC Chapel Hill '24
Contact me if you have any questions with the email above
***Note for online rounds: Online debates are really weird and the possibility of someone's internet cutting out or their audio lagging is really high. In order to keep the round going smoothly, I strongly suggest that you send over speech docs for each speech and disclose your cases either on the wiki or putting it on the email chain. That way even if there is a technical issue during a speech we don't have to backtrack.
I was the captain of the Ardrey Kell High School Public Forum team. I competed in PF for 4 years and had some decent success on circuit.
Speed wasn't an issue as a debater but judging is a whole different story, so slow down just a little bit, especially if it's a new topic. I'm fine with spreading as long as you provide speech docs (otherwise I won't flow).
Provide warrants for everything you read. Explain why something happens, instead of just claiming that it happens.
Signpost signpost signpost!
-Debate is a game. I am tech>truth and will flow any argument, as long as you articulate them well and your link chains actually make sense.
-I like framework debates, but in order to win off of framework you need to extend it in every speech of the round. If no framework is given, I default cost-benefit.
-No new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. Second Rebuttal should frontline turns (you can kick out of them strategically, but don't bs). Weighing in rebuttal is lit.
-If an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true.
-Summary and final focus have to be consistent. You can re-explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round in FF. 1st FF can do a little bit extra weighing and new backlines to responses made in 2nd summary given that the first speaking team has a disadvantage in the round but no new link extensions that weren't in summary.
-My favorite protein is weigh protein (if you don't understand you're either gonna lose the round or you spend time prepping for debate so much that you don't have time to go to the gym)
-If you don't extend a link in summary, it's game over for you. Link extensions should have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. Weighing should also be extended in every speech. You can't link in with weighing if you're not winning your link.
-Extending something doesn't mean saying "extend the Smith evidence that goes conceded". Extend what the evidence says as well as the warranting/implication
-Summary doesnt have to extend conceded defense unless it's turns or TD. Turns without warranting and implications aren't turns at all so I'm not gonna evaluate them if you don't flush them out.
-2nd FF can't have any new link ins or weighing. Extend it from summary
At the end of the day, I will vote off of the most important argument in the round. If it is well-articulated and weighed, chances are you probably won it.
I'm going to be honest here. I understand and support the fact that progressive argumentation is key for checking back abuse of norms and create inclusivity in the debate sphere. However, I ran substance for most of my career and I am not an expert at progressive argumentation. That being said, I will evaluate theory and some basic level Ks if they are really really well explained. My threshold for evaluating progressive args is high so the simpler your arguments are, the better. I'd still much rather judge a normal substance debate, but if there is a violation that you absolutely have the need to call out, then go for it. Don't run frivolous arguments.
-I slightly lean to no RVIs but I'm pretty taboo about it
-No K-affs, Plans/CPs, tricks, etc (I have no idea what these are)
-I'm not going to call for cards after round unless you make an effort to indict one and I am told to call for it.
-I will be flowing the entire round except for crossfire, so if something important in cross pops up, I'm not going to consider it unless it's mentioned in speech.
-If you are racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, ableist, or show any other kind of discrimination you will be dropped automatically with the lowest speaks possible.
-You can paraphrase your cards as long as the content is what it actually says. If you do get caught lying about your cards, you will get an L with really low speaks
-Any Weeknd or Drake reference = 30 speaks
At the end of the day, whether you're on the bid round or you're riding the bubble, make sure you have fun. I get bored very easily debating or judging so make the round entertaining and light hearted. If you're funny, I'll bump your speaks and will like you but don't force it or come off as rude.
If you have any questions that I may not have answered in this paradigm, you can contact me using the info I put at the top.
My pronouns are she/her.
I did PF at Westlake and I currently coach there.
You only need to extend defense in first summary if it has been frontlined otherwise, it sticks.
I think 2nd rebuttal needs to at least frontline offense and preferably defense as well. I won't automatically down you if you don't do this but I prefer it and I think it's more strategic.
If you want to concede a de-link to kick out of a turn you can't just say that phrase, you need to explain why the particular arguments allow you to do that. If you only say "we concede the de-link so we kick out of the turn" and move on and your opponent extends the turn, I will grant them the turn.
I will vote on the least mitigated link chain leading to the most weighed impact. I will vote for a team with a fleshed-out link chain and a poorly extended impact over a team that does the opposite.
I give speaks mainly based on presentation or if I think a team should be in out rounds. However, if you want a 30 from me focus on speaking clearly and having good round etiquette.
I'll evaluate any arguments like theory/Ks but I don't have pervasive knowledge of how they traditionally function in rounds so make sure everything is explained thoroughly.
I'm good with speed to an extent, anything getting close to spreading I probably can't follow.
The most important thing in debate is weighing! If you don't weigh, I am forced to decide what I think is the most important argument.
If you want more specifics, feel free to ask me questions!
I debated at Westlake for awhile.
debate is a game.
i am ok with whatever you run
speed is ok ✅
I am a parent judge so please speak slowly and clearly.
I can only judge on the points that I can understand.
I normally do not disclose at the end of the rounds. This goes for paneled rounds and elimination rounds as well. I also try to let the contestants time themselves, but if a team absolutely wants me to time as well, then I can.
I've judge the TFA circuit for about 6 years now, and judge just about any event there is. Although I only participated in LD and Extemp in high school, I have a grasp of just about every event there is and talk to other judges on the circuit to gain insight on resolutions and paradigms.
I am OK with speed, but not at the expense of clarity, so I'd like it if you could slow down for main contentions, taglines, your values, criterion, voters, etc.. I will also say that it is important to highlight your voters at the end of a round, and to give no more than 3. Honestly, 2 voters is a fine number as well. 1 voter would probably be too little, and 4+ would be too many.
Please do NOT just flat-out spread the entire round. If you must spread, then please do so during a card. I have never had to yell out "CLEAR," and hope I never have to.
I would suggest using all of your prep time and to not yield any unused time unless absolutely necessary.
I really shouldn't have to say this, but based off of what I have seen in the past, I feel the need to remind you that you need to respect your opponents and should not sass them. Please do not be rude or condescending towards them. I have voted people/teams down just because they were super rude, and that's despite them winning on my flow. Also, please do not be rude or unprofessional towards your teammates or me.
I love unique arguments and cases, but don't push too hard just for the sake of being unique. However, ways to be unique include giving me observations, telling me who has the burden and for what, and using clever definitions, standards, and tests. A lot of great work can be done with your framework so do not neglect it.
I also love it when you tell me what the turns are. A lot of arguments do turn on themselves, so if you point that out to me, I'll give you a lot of credence and that will work to your advantage on the ballot.
I do look at how well you work with your partner too (for PD and Policy), so teamwork and chemistry are a part of the ballot for me. Also, I do look at pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos does not mean you should just yell the entire time. Please do not do that. As for ethos and logos, I will say that I went to law school, so I know a good source when I hear one, and I know how arguments tend to be flawed and I know how they can become more logical. With that said, logic is different from intuition. Keep that in mind. Logical arguments are great, but intuitive arguments can be strong as well.
For policy debate, I'm a cross between stock issues and policy maker. I love a good K and I really enjoy it when you can set yourself up during Cross-Examination and such. I don't like it when people start talking about space, and I think that extinction is overplayed. I have also voted purely off of T before.
I try not to overthink it. I always ask myself "who do I think should go to the next round?" At the end of the day, I do not want to think I let someone down by not voting for them, so I try to find peace and resolution with my final decisions.
A lot of times, confidence goes a long way, so even if you are unsure of yourself, portraying a sense of confidence really helps on my flow. The way I see it, you all are still young, so you have time to acquire knowledge, so what you need above all else right now is confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Please don't be arrogant or cocky either.
On the whole though, I would describe myself as a pretty laid back person and judge. I am a bit quirky though, so my apologies in advance if I type something out in the chat and it throws you off.
Honestly, I'm almost never swayed by abuse arguments. That doesn't mean you shouldn't present them, but if you are, then make sure they are legitimate. I've seen too many compulsory abuse arguments. Look at the other side's intent. Can you prove it? Was it just an accident? Is your abuse argument about a fundamental issue, or is it just merely procedural?
I'll generally allow anything, but I am a bit old school and think that LD should still be Value-Criterion centric, CX should be policy, and Public Forum should be more communal, values based, and domestic. PF shouldn't just be another way for policy debaters to compete, but I also see PF as more than just LD with teams. I think PF is kind of a blend of the two where evidence and cards can be read, with some actual policies pointed out as well. But please don't turn PF into mini-CX.
Drops happen, so don't fret over accidentally dropping something, and if the drop was major, then please extend it and give me impacts and its significance. Please don't just extend without any kind of elaboration on the matter. Just telling me to extend doesn't really help me out, but an elaboration, justification, explanation, etc. will go a long way.
Crystallization is super important. Please tell me what the 2-3 main areas of clash are in the debate and why you should win on those grounds. These are essentially what your voters should be, but they should also help guide you with your rebuttals and the other speeches you have before the round ends.
Please don't forget to make extensions. Drops happen, but at least extend your own arguments. At times I've voted down a team that had a winning argument mainly because they failed to recognize it as a winning argument, and therefore didn't extend it properly.
Don't overlook the power of sportsmanship and following ethical guidelines.
Please type in the chat box how much prep time you have left and/or how much you have used. That would be very helpful.
I've viewed all of NSDA's Judge Training videos on YouTube and would HIGHLY recommend that all competitors view them as well.
Sometimes it helps to look at the videos for IEs and such too. Speaking style is a mode of persuasion, after all, and IEs can show deep reflection. Such deep reflection can be important in a debate round, but is likely more important when conducting your research and creating your cases and such.
If you have any other specific questions, then feel free to ask me before the round.
Please include me on any email chains. My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
i competed in policy debate for 4 years and debated on the national circuit.
put me on the email chain - email@example.com
***i flow on paper. when reading topicality, theory, or framework arguments, please slow down. if i don't flow an argument, it's because you did not articulate it clearly.***
-- topicality --
i generally default to competing interpretations, but most certainly can be persuaded otherwise. have thorough explanations of the internal link and impact - repeating the phrase "they explode limits" 5 times tells me nothing.
-- counterplans --
good counterplan debates are great to watch. explain why the counterplan is distinct from the affirmative and why it solves. aff specific counterplans are always better than generic ones.
-- disadvantages --
have impact analysis and comparison of internal links. turn case arguments are important and underutilized. always answer the framing debate. there should be comparison between models of decision making. surface level, tag-line phrases about extinction being irreversible aren't enough to persuade me to value extinction first, especially when aff teams have well warranted framing args - the 2nr needs a clear, warranted link story, particularly true with politics disads because the evidence is notoriously shallow
-- kritiks --
for neg teams reading the k: no large overviews, i'd rather have that explanation done on the line by line. regarding framework, i generally default to weighing the aff. framework on the kritik is a link-framing argument. i need warrants why your interpretation/model of debate/role of the ballot is preferable and/or resolves the affirmative's offense. why should i utilize your framing as the lens through which i make my decision?
have specific links to the aff. even if you read a generic piece of link evidence, you can still utilize the warrants in that evidence and contextualize it to rhetoric or action of the 1ac. if you're making an ontology claim, i won't just vote on ontology - you still need a link to the aff. you should make arguments as to why the links turn the case.
i'm not familiar with a majority of kritik literature, so don't assume that i know what you're talking about. please explain your theory/thesis. buzzwords are vague and don't actually articulate the implication of your argument. i need to know what the alternative is, what it does, and why is the ballot necessary. arguments about why the alternative resolves the impact of the affirmative are always useful. generally i think you need an alternative in the 2nr, but can be convinced that you don't - just explain why
***no death good/death inevitable args -- i don't find those arguments persuasive at all***
aff teams debating the k: far too often i think affirmative teams are too defensive and aren't prepared to defend why the aff is good. have reasons why discussions about the 1ac and its content are good for debate. framework interpretations along the lines of "neg should read a competitive policy option" are not that strategic or compelling. make sure you're responding to the negative's specific framework standards.
the 2ac should line by line each link argument; waiting till the 1ar will put you behind in the debate. don't group the all of links. saying "their ev is not specific to the affirmative" is also no a sufficient response. you should address the argument made by their evidence and explain why the aff doesn't say/do that. please explain what the permutation is and how it functions. have warranted analysis as to why the permutation resolves the negative's offense.
-- k affs/performance/framework --
i'm more inclined to vote for framework but can definitely be persuaded to vote against it. i need to know what your model of debate looks like and how that compares to their model of debate.
neg teams: just like with topicality, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. fairness is probably more of an internal link to education than its own impact, but you should make the argument that fairness is an intrinsic good. you'll likely need a tva otherwise aff arguments about why you exclude their education become more convincing.
aff teams: i'd prefer that the 1ac would have a close connection to the topic. i need to know what the 1ac means and what it does. if the speech act of the 1ac is significant, why? why does the ballot have a causal influence on that?
-- theory --
what specifically did your opponent do? why did that make it structurally more difficult for you to debate? new affs bad and aspec are 2 arguments in debate i never want to vote for. please slow down when you're reading theory.
-- for LD debaters --
everything i said above about how i evaluate policy debates applies to LD too.
i don't like a lot of the theory stuff that y'all do. if you must go for theory, like any other procedural argument, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. i won't vote on an RVIs. they don't make sense, and you shouldn't be punished for reading a theory argument.
-- for PF debaters --
at the beginning of the round, the team speaking first should start an email chain. both teams should email out your entire case before your first constructive speech. in speeches after the first constructive, send out all the evidence you read *again before the speech* -- the amount of time wasted after/in between speeches asking for and sending evidence is ridiculous -- if you don't flash evidence, that will be reflected in your speaker points
-- last updated for the Longhorn Classic 2022 --
Hey!! I did PF for four years @ Colleyville on the Texas & national circuits.
**Tech>truth unless something is oppressive. However, the more ludicrous an argument is, the more work you’re going to have to put in to get my ballot.
**Since I’m no longer debating/researching the topics, please explain topic-specific jargon to me (ex: fonops w/UNCLOS, or evergreening patents w/Pharma). If I don’t understand something, it’ll be difficult for me to vote on it!!
**While I’m fine with you going tech on the flow, I’ve never learned how to properly evaluate progressive arguments (theory, k’s, etc.) Don’t run theory or a K just to confuse your opponents/beat inexperienced teams. I wouldn’t recommend reading a progressive argument in front of me, but if it’s imperative to read one, explain it to me like a regular argument & flesh it out in a simplistic way.
**Defense sticks in 1st summary unless frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.
**I prefer line by line summary > big picture summary
**If you want to be safe just treat me like a flay judge. (in the sense that I will evaluate the flow, but I think that establishing/extending a narrative throughout the round is also very important)
Warrant your arguments! I prefer a well warranted & logical argument to an unwarranted one corroborated by a sketchy piece of evidence. (warrants>>>>)
Extend arguments and not just author names! Don’t just say “extend the NYT evidence” without actually extending what the NYT evidence says.
Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh! Please do comparative, round specific weighing - it will make my life so much easier. If you don’t weigh, then you leave me to intervene & one team is going to think they got screwed over.
Meta weigh!!!! If one team is trying to outweigh on probability & the other is outweighing on magnitude, explain to me why I should look to probability weighing over magnitude weighing or vice versa.
Evidence Comparison! If your opponents have evidence with polar opposite claims, explain why your evidence is better in the context of the round instead of simply reiterating your evidence.
- Collapse! Don’t go for everything in summary and final focus. Even though summaries are 3 minutes now, still collapse on a few arguments. (quality>quantity)
Mirror! If you don't extend links, warrants, impacts, and weighing in both summary and final focus, I WILL NOT VOTE OFF OF THE ARGUMENT. (the extensions should not be blippy) New in the 2 is not the move :// but the only time I will evaluate new weighing in FF is if there has been no prior weighing throughout the round
Frontline turns/offense in 2nd rebuttal! 2nd summary is too late to start responding to offense that was placed in 1st rebuttal.
Be rude! Please be respectful of your opponents & please don’t let crossfires escalate into a shouting match.
Miscut evidence! Depending on how severely miscut a card is, I may drop you or dock speaks. I’ll call for evidence after the round if a team tells me to call for it, or if both teams have directly conflicting evidence & neither team did evidence comparison.
Just card dump! Obviously it's good to reference lots of cards, but be sure to add in extra analysis & weighing that specifically interacts with the arguments made in the round. Remember: fewer, & more fleshed out arguments are usually easier to vote on than lots of blippy ones.
- Spread! I’m cool with a fast pace as long as you're clear, but I won’t be able to adequately flow/process spreading. With online debates, talking too fast can be a risk. (don’t sacrifice clarity for speed)
Shake my hand! Germs suck.
****I definitely appreciate humor in rounds & will be prone to increasing your speaks if you make me laugh. However, if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will tank speaks & be wayy more inclined to drop you!
Just be a nice person & have fun. :))
Please be quick calling for cards and setting up email chains. You waste time and slow the tournament down when it takes super long in between speeches to show evidence.
Overall, use critical thinking skills and your own analysis to persuade me. Don't read straight through your evidence and count on me to understand everything; do the intellectual footwork for me. Weigh throughout the round. Framing is encouraged. Speed is discouraged. I'mokay with open cross if circuit rules and both teams are.
Read my written comments on the ballot! I give useful, constructivefeedback.
Disads: Try to make these arguments persuasive and reasonably believable. Sure, you might chain the impact to include nuclear war, but if it isn't likely, it's less important to me.
Counterplans: Please read the plan text slowly and thoroughly explain why it would solve better than the affirmative . The counterplan text should not be a paragraph long. Use your own words in the speech to signal that you actually know what you are advocating for.
Topicality: Please go very slowly on these arguments, because I want to write down every part of the shell. If I don't understand every part of the shell, it's difficult for me to feel comfortable voting on it.
Kritiks:Only run these if you can explain every part of the shell in simple terms, especially what the alternative would tangibly look like. Provide authentic analysis in your own words on the kritik's substance so I can understand better.
Theory: Make sure it's an important enough of a violation to warrant the theory. This should not be kicked prematurely.
Conditionality: I get irritated when more than 2 off-case arguments are conditional because I feel like it turns the debate into a "see who can cover everything the fastest" match instead of a "use evidence and logic to prove why you're right" match. I also think multiple worlds theory is argumentatively lazy.
Disclosure: I do not vote off of disclosure theory. Good teams should be able to use their topic education and research as well as their argumentative and persuasive skills to engage in and refute cases that they've never seen before. Disclosure undermines critical thinking and creativity.
TFA LD:Avoided frivolous definition arguments. Off-case arguments are great.
Congress:Please don't just tell me how a bill won't solve the problem, argue against general purpose of the bill.Use evidence and clash with other people in the room.
Updated for Harvard 2021:
While I have a background in policy and LD I’m usually in pf pools for round commitments these days. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round that you think would help your strategic advantages.
I prefer a framework or a weighing mechanism in which I can filter the debate. I like strong link chains, impact calculus, and contentious clash. I think defense should be extended if it’s an important argument in the debate, but you ought not waist speech time if they concede the defense. Speed will always be fine, I will flag if I get tech fuzzy because of storms that are expected throughout the weekend.
Email Chain: Grahamphlieger@gmail.com
Policy, PF, Ld, Congress, Extemp for Crandall HS (Tx): 2011-2015
Coach for Southlake Carroll HS (Tx): 2015-2017
Coach for Lake Travis HS (Tx): 2019-
npda/npte at University of Texas at Tyler 2015-2018
My name is Fariha, I’m a freshman in college and I debated at Brooklyn Tech. I did policy debate in HS but am very comfortable in LD. I read a K aff and Afropess and don't particularly enjoy Framework, but if y'all win on Framework I'll vote for it -they just aren't the most fun debates to watch. Love K debates, not the biggest fan of high theory but I'll vote on it.
I do not care what you read as long as it isn’t offensive but please don’t get caught up in jargon that I won’t understand as I don’t debate anymore.
In the end, just do what you’re good at because those are the debates that will be the best.
On spreading - spreading takes some getting use to and because I haven’t debated in a very long time, I’ve lost a little bit of my ear for spreading, but as long as you start off at a decent speed and build up we’ll be good - just PLEASE be clear
This is very brief but if there are any other questions you have please feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and yes please put me on the email chain.
Please be nice, don’t be overly snarky to your opponents and make jokes and engage with one another!
I am a third year out and I did CX and LD at Austin SFA from 2015-2019.
I would like to be on the email chain - email@example.com
I have 0 preference for argumentative style (traditional, “progressive” etc). Yes I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go.
Tech/Truth: I default to tech on arguments I either have personal opinions about or don’t understand but please don’t mistake tech as just having more ink on the flow. I swing more towards truth in matters where whatever is being said is like common knowledge or a fact about current events etc.
I will not disclose your speaker points and I won’t give you a 30.
Speaker points are 60% strategy and quality of argumentation and 40% how clearly you spoke and your in round etiquette. I will give you the lowest points I can if you are nasty. Don’t be.
Kritiks: Fantastic. Please make sure you understand it and you explain it clearly. I’m probably familiar with whoever you are reading so I wouldn’t downvote you because I don’t know/understand the author but the burden is still on you to explain and win their argument as if I don’t know who they are.
T: Please be mindful I have not judged many rounds on this LD or policy topic so I have 0 preconceived notions of what is T and what is not. You must give me a clear violation->impact story.
Theory: If you’re in LD or PF-I don’t evaluate theory. Ask me for clarifiers if you must. CX- do your thing but please don’t just spread through a bunch of blocks someone else likely wrote
Disads and Counterplans are great! Make your link stories specific! Please, don’t forget to debate about the aff!
Please be nice to each other. Don’t quote the TFA rules at me. Run whatever arguments you want but you absolutely must tell me a coherent story that is backed by your evidence.
Mix of stock issues judge and tabla rasa- prefer a clear, traditional debate but don’t mind if teams run a kritike or counterplan with sufficient evidence and clear argumentation to back it up
Speech style- I prefer speech clarity over speed reading. A succinct argument that doesn't spread is preferred.
Argument- No preference for argument as long as it is backed by evidence and fits within status quo of possibility.
Sources- Credit will be given for most contemporary and credible sources presented in argument. Repetition of sources and linking to argument is preferred method of citation.
Looking for a good, clean, and respectable debate. Courtesy and good sportsmanship matter towards overall scoring.
Did PF for 3 years at Westlake, Treat me like a lay judge,
Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am the debate/extemp coach for Norman North High School in OK. We're relatively traditional style debaters, but part of my team does compete on the circuit 8 or so times a year. Before that, I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college. So I’ve dabbled in it all.
Overall: My philosophy on debate whoever debates better should win. However, my personal opinion of arguments or strats shouldn't matter, so I default to weighing brought up by debaters whenever possible. I do believe Aff and Neg need to interact with each other's cases.
I’ll judge the round based off what you give me, and won't judge based off what I'd do, but what y'all did.
Add me to the email chain! firstname.lastname@example.org
LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread, but I'm fine with some speed, if I can't understand I will say “clear” once or twice. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.
PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.
CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.
UPDATE FOR WSD @ TFA:
I am pretty new to world's but I judged every single round from prelims to finals at the Berkeley tournament, so my experience is not null.
Big things for me: I like clash, I want yall to answer the question, and I reward good on the spot analysis of your opponents argument, don't get so caught up in your case that your forget to answer your opponent's argument. Also I am fine with speed, but I don't think its necessary in worlds and honestly I prefer speech's that are stylistic and given like a PA. Please let me know if you have any questions and congrats on making it to state!
IE: I am pretty open to any stylistic choices or preparations of a speech/script, it is an Interpretation after all, so creative choices are welcome!
Extemp- You should have ample amount of evidence for the three main claims you decide to make. Please have your speech as structured as possible as it makes it easier for me to follow along and judge. It’s better for your speech to run 5 minutes, but be clear and conscie than for you to stay up there for seven minutes rambling on.
OO/INFO- There should be at least three sources in your speech. I don’t mind when you try and break the very formulaic structure of OO or info, but I should be able to easily follow along. I.E. you dont have to go “But first, then, finally” but hey whatver works for you, works for me, speak clear, be confident, and have fun up there.
HI- Use your space, HI is about physical humor as much as its about the jokes you are telling! Racist/misogynistic/Xenophobia etc humor is not funny. It’s not.
DI- Be careful with your content, DI’s are serious and I understand that, but be careful with how graphic you get. I am not a squimish judge so curse words dont bother me and mature material is fine, just try and be as tasteful as possible. And DONT mis-represent a character I.E. if you are playing a forty year old mom who just suffered the loss of her son, thats fine, but if you are speaking for an identity you cannot identify with, maybe not. DONT USE SLURS. Even for effect. It’s not needed. Use the space and be comfortable with silence. There is a lot of pauses and silence in DI and when its intentional l it works really well, so dont be afraid of it!
PR/PO- Don’t let your binder fall flat. I don’t think there is one right way to hold the binder, but there are a million wrong ways. It’s awesome when you find a way to incorporate the binder for techy stuff, but its def not necessary.
Your teaser should give me a clue about what your piece is about, (AND IT SHOULD BE MEMORIZED) it doesnt have to be a summary, but a couple of lines to let me know where the piece ie headed is great!
TIME. Be concious of it. Don’t run 10:29 or 10:30, once the fist is up WRAP IT UP.
If you forget your piece, take a moment to pause and collect your thoughts, try not to show it in your face and dont worry about it too much.
Be respectful to other performers, if you are on your phone, eating loudly, sleeping, or being distracting in anyway. I might factor it into your rank. It’s not cool, respect eachothers work.
please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Colleyville Heritage HS '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit), (some experience in WSD and LD)
University of Oklahoma '24: currently doing ~policy~
do whatever you want, i vote on the flow. your barrier to speed is your opponent (if they can’t handle it don’t do it). please warrant and weigh your arg and terminalize your impacts — if you do this you will most likely win. 2nd rebuttal should frontline, if they don’t defense is sticky in 1st summary. if it’s in final it needs to be in summary. have good evidence ethics.
come in pre flowed and send the email chain at the start time
for roadmaps: just tell me which piece of paper to have on top
welcome to my paradigm:
*before your speech, pls just tell me what piece of paper to start on and I'll follow you from there
Warrant, Weigh, Win- it's that simple.
- it needs to be on the flow, I need clean extensions and weighing if you want me to vote on it
(please weigh. please, please, please weigh)
- for it to be an extension, I need claim, warrant, and impact
- tell me why/how you're winning and why your argument matters (write my ballot for me)
- terminalize impacts
- please come in pre-flowed and prepared to debate (i want to start the round asap)
- speech doc/email chain should be sent at the start time of the round (or earlier, just not later)
- signpost, I want to write down all of your wonderful arguments (in the right places)
- speed: i don't care how fast you go, know your opponent (if they can't handle the speed -- don't go fast, if they don't have experience flowing off speech docs, this isn't the round for them to learn), if you're going to go sicko mode, give me a doc, otherwise, I flow on paper if I'm not writing stuff down, slow down
how to get more speaks:
+1 speaker points if you create an email chain AND USE IT PROPERLY ie. send all cut cards before every speech, (send an edited version after if you do something different), analytics are a good thing to send too but I'll still give you the extra speaks
- quality > quantity
- tech > truth
- default util
- I don't like calling for ev. you should be doing the ev analysis yourselves, ie. compare the ev between speeches then say it in the speech (I won't vote on it if it's not on the flow)
- 1st rebuttal shouldn't be doing case extensions (unless it's an ov, fw, or weighing you want flowed on your case), i already got the args from case, it's just repetitive
- 2nd rebuttal: pls frontline offense
- if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense is not sticky
- if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, defense is sticky
- please weigh (pls, pls, pls)
- final focus should mirror the summary (if it's not in the summary it shouldn't be in final) (weighing should also be the same)
- PLEASE DON'T GO FOR EVERYTHING, collapse and narrow down the debate
- start whenever y'all are ready, don't wait on me
- yes we can skip grand cross (#abolishgrandcross) (you can exchange it for 1 minute of prep, not each, it's a trade off)
*new section coming soon
evidence: (enjoy this cute little rant)
sparknotes version: don't do anything stupid and don't take forever to pull up evidence, evidence should be cut properly and cited with a working link, if your opponents are doing something bad/sketch with ev make it a voting issue I AM VERY LIKELY TO VOTE ON IT (if it's legit)
evidence ethics (10 minute version) (katelynne's version)
I literally don't understand why evidence ethics are so bad. Just make an email chain and send all the evidence you're reading before every speech, it's not hard and cx/ld have been doing it forever, it doesn't put you behind. Also, if for some reason you choose to make the round harder and take more time by not doing an email chain please do not take long to pull up your evidence. I really don't want to set a time limit so just don't take 10 minutes to pull up evidence. The standard should be: if you read it in the speech, expect it to be called (so have the cut card with link and cites ready to go).
If you have any questions about what to do in terms of presenting evidence, I have linked the NSDA rules below. I will at least give you 25s for a violation. If your opponents are in violation, make it a voting issue, no cap. I will vote them down.
- if you do make it a voting issue, i will call for the evidence in question to make sure there is an actual violation (please don't think it's game over for you if someone calls you out for bad evidence but it's actually legit)
https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/HS-Unified-Manual-2019-2020.pdf (command f "7.1")
- I need cut cards with (at least) a link to the full article
- I know this is a lot but there are too many debaters trying to cheat the system with bad evidence and I just want to make it crystal clear how I am judging rounds
Other people I try to judge like/influenced my debate style:
debate bestie- https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=100821
current coach- https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6406
- *if you have me in any other debate event than PF or LD: I'm so sorry. I'm not gonna lie to you: this won't go well, and I apologize in advance.
- Yes, put me on the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
- *For LDers: they've been sticking me in ya'll's rounds all year despite my objections, so I've reluctantly become somewhat mildly knowledgeable about how the event works, and can safely say that I won't be the absolute worst judge in this event, and should generally be able to follow along most substance. That said, please treat me like a flay judge, and ease up on the speed and the jargon, because if ya'll start spreading or feel the need to try some new-fangled progressive argumentation, I promise you that I will have no idea what's going on and will either default to the team I can comprehend or literally just flip a coin if I don't know what's going on for either of ya'll.
- No longer relevant because COVID, but leaving it here for posterity: Bring me food and I'll give you a 30 (just you, not your partner, unless he/she/they brings me food too-- no freebies).
Some stuff abt me: I debated in PF for two years for Westwood High School, one of them on the national circuit where I achieved mild success. Now I'm a second year out. Here's what you rly need to know:
TLDR: Warrant, weigh, and don't be abusive. Tech>Truth, but don't be offensive and/or dumb. Yes, I disclose, and no, you don't have to.
- Yes, I intervene. 2 scenarios where it will happen: Either you're being incredibly offensive (sexist/racist/homophobic, etc.) in the round, or you lie about evidence. To clarify the first: I haven't seen many egregious examples of this type of conduct, but suffice to say: when you cross a line, I will drop you. I don't care if you won the flow-- if you actively contribute to making the debate space more exclusionary, I refuse to reward you for that with a W. To clarify the latter: It's one thing to marginally overstate the extent to which a card supports your contention. It's another thing entirely to cherrypick the part of a card that supports your argument, while ignoring the entire list of answers to your argument made in the next paragraph. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I will simply drop a piece of evidence if I find it to be misconstrued. But if your entire link chain is based on one card, and that card is a straight-up lie (at least the way you read it), I will drop the entire argument from my flow and refuse to evaluate it. I won't necessarily drop you for it, if you have some other source of offense that wins you the round, but you will be at a disadvantage from that point forth, and your speaker points will be dismal. This has happened exactly once so far in my time judging-- please do not be the second, whoever is reading this.
- I'm nice on speaker points now. Don't worry too much, just be respectful.
I heavily dislike presumption/default votes, and expect you to not put me in that position. If you're confused about what this means, let me elaborate: A very disturbing situation is one in which I have to view two or more paths to the ballot that are both equally strong. Don't misunderstand-- this most often means you're doing something wrong. For example, if I have two ways to evaluate the round and I can literally flip a coin to figure out who gets the W because you frontline and extend completely separate arguments while doing 0 comparative weighing, I will consider factors such as quality of extensions, which scenario is more of an offensive argument to vote off of, etc. to make my decision. To clarify, this DOES NOT mean I will intervene to give the W to the team I like more in the round. It just means that the team does the better debating in a bad round should win the debate, rather than me reducing the ballot to the outcome of the coin flip-- ergo, no "presuming" anything.
Speak fast if you want (mostly-- but if you're over 300 words per minute, we'll have trouble), as long as you’re clear, and your opponents don’t get spread out of the round (hint: if this is a potential issue, ask if they would like to establish a speed threshold). But if you wanna ignore this, just let me be clear about something: I. Am. An. Extremely. Lazy. Person. I try to intervene as little as possible in debate rounds, and that extends to your speaking. If I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you-- I shouldn't be doing that anyways. It's your job as a debater to convince me of stuff, so do it right.
CPs/Ks/Theory and progressive whatnot--- Please, don't do it unless there's no other option. There are some situations where it's unavoidable: If your opponents paraphrase like 100000 cards and spread to place a boatload of responses, leaving you with not nearly enough time to make responses and call for evidence and whatnot, sure, run theory about spreading, paraphrasing, or whatever-- but it has to be egregious abuse. And even then, please dumb it down rather reading a shell. This event was designed to be a form of debate accessible to everyone, and I believe these types of arguments, while sometimes necessary, undermine that purpose. Not only do I doubt I can evaluate them correctly, but I'm frankly tired of seeing teams (you know who you are) from big schools with multiple coaches that are flown out every other weekend, go into round and spread theory shells against small-school teams (from predominantly local, lay circuits) about how small schools are supposedly harmed by non-disclosure or paraphrasing (this means I almost never evaluate disclosure theory).
- Paraphrasing- I don't understand why people are so uptight about this in PF. Reading direct quotes doesn't mean you can't misrepresent what the evidence says, so the logic behind the "no paraphrasing" requirements that many judges/coaches set doesn't really make sense to me. Again, this event is designed to be accessible to everyone-- in some cases, that necessitates paraphrasing evidence in order to articulate your arguments in the clearest way possible. But independent of that, I think it's important to realize that with the time limits being what they are in this event, sometimes paraphrasing is the only way that you can have enough time to make an argument at a deeper level and really provide a complete narrative for the judge to evaluate. So please, paraphrase if you want, and don't read theory against it unless there's actually an egregious case of misrepresentation that changed the coarse of the whole round.
I shouldn’t have to say this but: Claims/Statistics need warrants before they can be evaluated as arguments, and this applies to all offense and defense in the round. If you extend an impact without extending the warrant (or vice-versa), I count it as dropped-- not weighable. Extending an argument, ESPECIALLY with the new extra minute of summary, should be done cleanly, with everything important mentioned in both summary and final focus. If neither team does this, I won't be happy.
- First summary is no longer allowed to skip extending terminal defense. If you're gonna extend it in final focus, I want it in summary as well. This year, the NSDA has literally given you an entire extra minute of summary AND prep time. There is no excuse anymore.
If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but I'm cool with it), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns.
Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, AT A MINIMUM. I think you should frontline defense as well, but I won't penalize you for not doing it. I like overviews, and don’t care if they’re in second rebuttal. Any overview read in first rebuttal MUST be answered in second rebuttal, otherwise it is conceded. You can allocate your time however you want-- I did 2-2 splits throughout my (very short) career, and it usually worked.
Terminal defense extensions are good. Turns are better. You can drop your case at any point in the round and still have a shot, assuming you did it right.
Anything in final focus must be in summary, except weighing (It doesn’t matter to me when you do it, as long as you do it because too many of you don't). Everyone needs to weigh. No one does. Please do. If not, you run the risk that the round becomes a messy stalemate (happens more often than you’d think), forcing me to intervene, and neither you nor I will appreciate the outcome of that.
- Weighing is more than saying buzzwords like probability, scope, magnitude, etc. You actually need to explain it. In fact, if you just get to the point and avoid saying those buzzwords (as in just say "Our impacts are more important because 1) we save 150 million people, while they only save 5 thousand, 2) We give you global benefits while they're restricted to China, 3) The chance of accessing X benefit is X% more likely to happen that nuclear war, which is almost possible today because of mutual deterrence"-- ALL WITHOUT SAYING THE WORDS "WE OUTWEIGH ON MAGNITUDE, SCOPE, AND PROBABILITY, BC ___") , I can guarantee you'll have extra time to warrant and even add some more weighing mechanisms, and maybe even some meta-weighing-- and then you'll be EXTREMELY likely to get my ballot, along with a FAT 30 :)).
- I realize that a lot of people won't be comfortable with this because it goes against everything ya'll were taught in debate camp and school and whatnot--- so I won't penalize you for it, meaning you COULD get a W30 without doing any of this-- it's just infinitely more likely that you'll fall back on buzzwords as a crutch and do 0 weighing, so be careful.
I strongly prefer that teams collapse in summary/final focus on key issues. You can go line by line in summary if you want, but by the time you get to final focus, I think you should be collapsing on 1-2 voting issues in the round, and CRYSTALLIZING.
Please have your evidence (preferably cut cards, but PDFs are ok if you paraphrase) available when your opponents call for it. As someone who debated with a very unreliable laptop and frequently used paywalled articles, I know sometime it takes some time to pull up evidence, so I'm slightly forgiving with this and will do my best to not be unfair. But try to not take it too far, because it's annoying, and if I'm on a panel, I can guarantee that I'll be one of the only ones who'll be nice about this.
Misconstrued cards will be dropped from the round. If I catch you straight up lying/falsifying, you’ll be able to tell; my face (particularly my eyebrows) is very expressive when I’m angry. Suffice to say: you’ll get an L25, and you’ll know you did, well before I announce it, post it on tabroom, and loudly scold you.
I don’t like jerks, but I love sass!. Please, by all means-- Be funny!!! (if you can haha) Tournaments are too depressing most of the time, for everyone, so ya'll might as well make this an entertaining experience for all of us.
- If you are being overtly offensive (as in racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc.), you will get an L25, period.
*******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.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain. email@example.com
UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.
Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!
I debated PF for 3 years at Westlake High School.
I'll flow any argument, but keep in mind that I am a PFer and have comparatively less knowledge regarding plans, CPs, Ks, etc so if you are running one, make sure it is well explained. Moreover, feel free to run theory but check your privilege (see speaks section).
Second rebuttal has to frontline turns (sorry if this isn't the case where you're from, Texas has ingrained it in me). However, second rebuttal does not have to extend case offense. Weighing as early as possible gives you an edge on my ballot, so I would recommend doing it in this speech.
Anything not in summary is gone at this point. The exception is defense from rebuttal (sticky only for first summary). That can be brought up in final focus if your opponents try to extend through ink in second summary.
Kind of goes without saying, but anything in ff had to have been in summary. Exception is evidence abuse (you call for a card before ff and think it's misconstrued).
Things that will dock your speaks:
-reading policy-style arguments against an obviously much less experienced team
-speaking super fast against an obviously much less experienced team (otherwise I don't care, go as fast as you want)
-reading disclosure theory against an obviously small/not nat-circuit school
-being rude in cross (especially if a guy is talking down/being a rude to a girl)
-reading straight off your computer
-reading in a monotone voice
-taking too long to pull up evidence when you're asked for it
-card dumping in rebuttal without any analysis (you're welcome, Jason)
Things that will increase your speaks
-including the warrant and impact in each extension
-having cohesive narratives across speeches
-tasteful topic-related jokes/puns
-my subjective belief that you should be in outrounds
I did PF in middle school and high school and have experience judging both PF and LD.
I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. Rebuttal should be line by line. In summary, I prefer line by line but big picture is fine too.
Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.
For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you.
I will call up evidence if there's a specific card that's super relevant to the round.
If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.
E-mail chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.
CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits are obv needed.
Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed.
K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk.
Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round.
Note though that as I have limited policy experience, talking too fast or being unclear has a greater risk of me not flowing anything since I’m not versed in topic lit.
Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.
Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.
Again, because of my limited policy experience, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any topic literature.
Open CX is okay with me.
Tech > Truth most of the time
ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.
All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.
Selam, I'm Nahom
** i don't wanna hear about black trauma (this includes giving examples in impacts), I will auto-down u, for all other stru-viol arguments give ur opponents and myself a trigger warning **
I debated at Hendrickson for my last 2 yrs of highschool
tech>truth (but pls dont abuse this)
Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal if u wanna go for it
Defense is sticky
2nd summary frontlining threshold is high, if ur partner doesn't frontline defense in rebuttal that's fine, but that means ur frontlining must be INSANE, 99% of the time I wont accept it.
Im pretty tech for pf, but like do big picture in the back half of round, if u wanna dump warrants and disads in rebuttal im down, just dont be abusive, and collapse in final foci. Also dont be afraid to go lay on me, common sense is your greatest tool, warranting always trumps cards.
Preferences: pls dont read trix imma be so lost, theory is fine if theirs a real abuse, disclosure hurts small schools, paraphrase at ur own discretion, but if its abusive then im down to vote of the T
If you read a K; know how to run it and slow down bc I'm very unfamiliar with it and gimme an alt that a lay could understand, idc if u think its a stock K if i don't understand what ur saying, u might of well of have done 4 minutes of mumble rapping. Also as a black judge in PF pls pls pls don't read afropess if ur not black, it'll give me white savior vibes, and I probably won't vote for you. (This also means I want you to make it clear to me that ur black/brown, I don't want to be in a position to assume)
I'm fine with speed, iIwent a bit fast during my time in pf as well, but again don't be abusive (an obv much weaker/inexperienced team should not have to be facing spreading). I don't think I've seen anyone in PF yet that I haven't been able to flow, I went around 290 wpm in my fastest rounds in PF, but once it hits 250, gimme a speech doc. If your opponents ask for one, give it to them idc how fast ur going, they may need it for personal reasons.
Clash is cool but I have a soft place in my heart for unique args (not squirrely, theirs a difference) as long as they r well thought out (unique links w/ supposedly stock cases r fire)
Probably hypocritical but don't read disads in 2nd rebuttal, In hindsight, it's just too late in the round and kinda abusive, 99% chance I don't evaluate it even if it's dropped, pls don't try to frame your disad as an overview/ turn if its not it'll just be annoying,
Summary is the most important speech in the round, FF is just for show, unless yall messed up in this round, I shud have my decision by summary, provided both sides weigh/frame the round, otherwise one of yall will think im judge screwing.
sum other tips
1. be nice in rounds, rip em a new one all u want, but make sure they're giving u the same energy or u just look dum, I like a nice aggressive crossfire, but walk the line between destroying someone's args and destroying their sense of self carefully, bc (from experience) its a dangerous tightrope that you may not want to walk
2. EXTEND WARRANTS, frontlines are not extensions, here is how ur summary shud be structured for an arg: frontline everything that matters, then extend everything u wanna go for.
3. Weighing/Framing OV in rebuttals r super strategic, weigh, weigh, weigh bc it'll make me happy, and tbh even if ur barely accessing an arg, if u win weighing that says its the most important, U WIN... for the most part (be careful bc this is diff from other PF debaters that prefer clean extensions over weighing)
4. Concede the small things to win the narrative, stats don't matter if ur narrative is bomb, evidence debates are boring, which means if u make it an ev debate I will make the standard for good ev rlly rlly high, and if neither of you have offense speaks will tank and I will default to the first speaking team.
4. Pls be funny, humor is ur greatest tool, joking around in cross and making ur opponents look dum is v enjoyable esp when ur opponents r being rlly aggressive.
5. I accept no forms of isms, racism, sexism or any homophobia. U will lose the round with lowest speaks possible.
6. Don't be buttholes with theory, ill know if ur just tryna win a round rather then effectively create change, and ill hate u for it. Also dont be hypocritical with theory, idc what ur shell says if u didnt disclose at every round ever on the wiki u better not read disclosure later that year (*cough cough* reading disclosure at the TOC for the first time ever), no shot im buying it.
7. Do NOT, and I'll repeat this to make sure this is super clear, DO NOT read structural violence based arguments without a clear, nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the oppression that may/may not exist. I will never accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this, logic-based warranting is key; for your own sake do not assume my political views/skin color will make me any more attracted to these types of arguments, in fact, I would very much rather prefer you have no understanding of the issues and not read this argument than have a shallow understanding and read these types of arguments. DO YOUR RESEARCH! If I sense BS you better believe I will call you out on it, and it very well may not be pretty.
8. Take risks, ill reward it (eg. collapsing on a turn)
9. Have fuuunsies, debate is a game, a v fun game, winning and losing r aspects of the game, dont take it to seriously, just enjoy urself in the moment and be respectful of one another
if u wanna talk, my email is: email@example.com, contrary to popular opinion I can and prob will be nice and am v much willing to give u advice/a bit of free consulting, bc I'm addicted to debate.
I did not do debate in high school or college.
I have coached speech and debate for nearly 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."
In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters end up talking more about how the debate is going down rather than the actual issues at hand. Try your best to avoid debating debate and debate the resolution.
Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.
In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.
For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.
If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.
add me to the email chain pls: firstname.lastname@example.org
Winston Churchill High School '20 UT '24
In high school, I primarily read K’s so I’m a better judge for k v. k and policy v. k debates. policy v. policy debates are great if that's what you do best!
Tell me how I should evaluate arguments/impacts
K v. K - These debates can get messy so make sure you have aff specific links and solid strat. If you're going to go for the perm, explain why your two theories are compatible.
Policy v. K - Aff specific links are good and give you a much better chance of winning the debate. I’m familiar with a lot of different K literature but make sure your arguments are clear and theories are well explained. The framework debate is extremely important, don’t forget about it.
K aff v. FW/T - Aff should go for whatever arg they feel is best whether that's the impact turn or w/m. Explain why your interp/counter interp is the best for debate. I’m have/will vote on FW/T.
Policy v. Policy - I engaged in these types of debates the least in high school but I know how to evaluate them fine. If this is what you're most comfortable with go for it.
don’t make arguments/comments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.
do what you do best
I debated for two years at Dripping Springs High School (PF, DX, some LD) and now compete in British-Parliamentary debate at NYU Abu Dhabi. I like debates that are more evidence focused rather than just an argument made on logic or rhetoric. Please extend main points/cards/rebuttals etc., if it isn't clearly extended, then I will consider it a drop and it will more than likely not be considered in the decision. Be respectful during the debate and questioning, no one likes interrupters.
Public Forum Debate:
PF is what I debated in all through high school and my favorite form of debate. With that, I love to see lots of clash and clear weighing that tells me what side should win. I am fine with speed, just be cognizant of your opponents and make sure that you are clear, if I can't understand you, I can't judge you. On the rebuttals, I prefer an organized line-by-line with clear answers. For the second speaker doing the rebuttal, I won't consider it a drop if you don't get to the arguments that were made on your case during the first speaker's rebuttal, just make sure your partner covers it in the next speech. I don't enjoy when whole contentions are purposely dropped in round, try to keep offense on all your contentions throughout the round. If you find yourself dropping whole contentions are subpoints, look to cleaning up your case, and limit your speech in constructive. Keep PF how it is supposed to be, I am not a huge fan of running plans, theory, and so on, if you want to do that, join CX or LD. At the end of the day, it is going to come down to who weighs the best at the end of the round, extend arguments and impacts. On crossfire, try to keep it civil, if it gets heat, I understand, again I love clash, just please don't waste my time and your time asking redundant questions. Keep your own prep time, and if you want to check cards, then be my guest, but that is your prep time, and unless it is something that is huge, pointing out things in cards won't play a huge factor in my decision. For any other questions, just ask, and I will be happy to answer. Speaking style won't affect my ultimate ballot, but participation in CF, flow of speeches, confidence, and clarity will all affect speaker points.
I don't have a ton of experience in LD, but if you weigh throughout the round and extend arguments then you're on the right path. All the LD I've done has been in UIL, so I have more experience with traditional rounds, but I am always open to learning new things. For specific questions, just ask.
Let me know what time signals you want. I enjoy organized speeches, sources, and confidence there really isn't much more to it :).
hey what's poppinnn. i debated PF for colleyville on the yeehaw and ~national~ circuit.
what i think matters:
- tech > truth: if an argument is conceded/lack of responsive defense it manifests with 100% probability.
- second rebuttal should respond to offense from first rebuttal. only giving the first speaking team final focus to frontline is not a bro move
- summary: i don't really have a preference if you go line by line or big picture but make sure to sign post bc i can't draw arrows on my laptop :(
- final focus: just in general new in the 2 not cool. FF should mirror summary so if an argument isn't in summary i won't evaluate it in ff
- defense is sticky
- quality > quantity: i cannot stress how much more effective fleshing out one good argument is vs blippily extending subpoints A-H. this means collapsing and extending your offense (not just frontlining defense) in summary with a clear link story that is well warranted and impacted! (too often forgotten :c)
- theory: i will be straight up, i have like no experience with running/evaluating theory so if you do decide to run it there is a very high chance it won't go too well with me (high barrier for theory). if you wanna run theory just to trip a team up - don't. please.
- weighing: ok. weighing is great when it is done STRATEGICALLY and not just to get the words probability and magnitude on the flow. telling me you outweigh on magnitude bc 900 million people go into poverty is not weighing, it takes two (impacts) to tango. if you have the same impacts....LINK WEIGH!
- evidence: if you're trying to indict/have conflicting evidence please áµ–Ë¡áµ‰áµƒË¢áµ‰ do the evidence comparison and analysis during the round, or else ur leaving it up to me and you may not like the outcome :( oh and if you call for evidence in round pls be speedy
^this is my partners paradigm, it’s way better than mine. i agree with 99% of it. if you see her tell her i said thanks (not tall brown girl) and feel free to ask questions
Hello! I competed for four years at Klein High School (2016-2020) mainly in PF and Extemp, typically on the local circuit with a few national circuit tournaments here and there (#smallschool). I now study International Political Economy at Georgetown University. Paradigm is in order of events that I'm most likely to end up judging.
PF - for less experienced teams:
In your constructives/cases, try to craft arguments that clearly explain how you access your impact; generally, I prefer impacts that can be measured and linked well to what you're saying.
For rebuttal, respond to each argument in the order they're presented (line-by-line). Second speaking team's rebuttal should provide some defense of their case (responding to your opponents' args in first rebuttal). Also, please provide a roadmap (the order of which sides you'll be addressing) at the beginning of your speech, starting after second rebuttal!. Finally, while giving the speech, please tell me which arguments you're addressing/defending (ie: to respond to my opponent's Contention 1....).
For summary, I think collapsing is important in addition to covering both sides. Explain to me the most important arguments in the round (re-mentioning the claims, warrants, and impacts) and why you're winning them. Moreover, you should give reasons why your opponents are not winning their arguments by repeating/extending the responses your partner made in rebuttal (aka defense). I advise against bringing up new arguments in the second summary speech.
For final focus, you should only bring up arguments that were mentioned previously in the debate round (so no new evidence/arguments). Give me reasons to vote for you and help write my ballot for me. A big picture final focus that incorporates elements from your partner's summary will help win you my ballot.
A few other things: I won't vote off of crossfire arguments, please time yourself and your opponents, and pre-flow before round! If you have questions about my decision and your coach is cool with it, feel free to reach out via email at email@example.com or message me on Facebook.
PF - for more experienced teams:
TL;DR: Tech > truth, roadmap/signpost, extend offense at the link/impact level in summary & FF (2nd rebuttal encouraged), weighing & collapsing are must-haves, no new args in the second summary and beyond, I default 1st speaking team with no offense, don't be rude or run arguments that are uninclusive, & ask me any questions before/after round.
1) Tech > truth unless it's offensive, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or racist (which will result in an L20). Framing/weighing mechanisms are great – the earlier they're introduced, the better. Roadmaps & signposting are a must.
2) Second rebuttal should frontline at least turns (otherwise up to you strategy wise). For both rebuttals, don't read new contentions as an "overview," disads are fine.
3) Arguments should be extended at the link and impact level - extensions should include card names with a summary of the evidence (Hapner '19 says xyz). This includes turns - so if you extend a turn, explain how it links into an impact! Both teams should extend args in summary & FF, and I encourage extensions in second rebuttal.
4) Speedwise, I'm a 7/10 in-person, 5 for cases & 6 for rebuttal-onward online. Speaks will be evaluated based on word economy, fluency, and strategic choices you make in the round (starting at a 28). Collapsing and strong weighing = high speaks! Incorporating some persuasive rhetoric is great in FF, as opposed to just giving a sped up summary.
5) Both teams should be able to extend defense in summary. Please don't read "new in the two" (second summary onward) - reading new evidence or analysis is a disadvantage to the first speaking team, and your speaker points will be docked.
6) Another important part of weighing is evidence comparison, so please tell me why I should prefer one piece of evidence over another (i.e. postdate, methodology, etc.), so that it won't be left to me to decide 5 minutes before I write my ballot. I will ignore misrepresented evidence from my decision, and it will harm your speaks.
7) Crossfire shouldn't be a shouting match. Use common sense - don't be rude, don't cut people off, etc. I won't explicitly flow crossfire, so make sure anything important you want me to consider is in a speech.
8) I will try to disclose (if allowed) if I think I'm able to make a reasonable decision within ~3 minutes after the end of second final or after I call evidence. I will likely disclose in all elim rounds unless you would like me not to (please let me know before hand).
9) If there's no offense at the end of the round, I'll default to 1st speaking team (given the structural advantage that 2nd speaking team has in terms of extending offense).
10) I may be lost if you try to read progressive arguments in front of me, but if it's explained very at a regular pace & explained well, I will attempt to evaluate it. Don't bank on it as a voter though (so if you plan on running disclosure, tricks, or 30 speaks theory, may want to strike me). If your opponent is clearly unfamiliar with theory/progressive argumentation, don't read it.
Debate is meant to serve as an activity in which you can continually improve. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions about my decision or about my paradigm; also, I'd be happy to answer your questions before round starts!
1) Organization of your speech is critical to help me understand your analysis – I like the seven part intro (or at least most of the elements: AGD, link, source, significance statement, question, answer preview) and on-tops (transitioning between points by using facts/jokes). If you have no idea what I'm talking about here, don't worry – all I ask is at least for a roadmap in the introduction.
2) Throughout the speech, make sure you're clearly linking back to the question. If it's a why question, make sure you're telling me why. Going over history/context should be reserved for the intro!
3) I appreciate slower-paced speeches, but if you're clear and understandable at a faster pace, go for it. Try to use hand gestures just to emphasize specific things, otherwise leave at your side. Vocal inflection/tonal variety is always great.
4) ~Two sources per point indicates to me strong grasp of source integration into your analysis, but try not to sound like you're just reading off evidence like in a debate round. Incorporate your own thinking into it! Also, using more credible thinktanks/institutions/research studies will strengthen your analysis.
Similar to what I said in my PF paradigm, the great thing about speech events and tournaments in general is how you can track your improvement. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at email@example.com if you have any questions about my feedback; also, I'd be happy to answer your questions before round begins.
Speech & Interp: Because I was obliged to compete in platform events my freshman and sophomore year, I have some background in speech but not much in interp. For interp events, I'll be evaluating you based on the TFA/published ballot categories. Here are a few things specifically for speech (for future sake too!):
1) Have a roadmap very clearly in the introduction. I appreciate a good device :)
2) Content is what helps you stand out in platform speeches – having good source integration is always a plus in prepared speech events!
3) Organization is crucial for me to understand what you're trying to get at – having a bunch of ideas that don't really seem related will affect your ranking.
4) Make sure you don't overuse hand gestures, just use them for emphasis. Any pace you're comfortable with works as long as you're clear and understandable.
5) Try to be as close to the time limit as possible without stalling/being repetitive – the more content the better!
Congress: I did some Congress, mainly TFA + some NSDA Senate. See Extemp for certain pointers on how I evaluate 'extemporaneous' speech events. I appreciate solid analysis with sources in speeches, and clash is highly encouraged even starting with the First Negation speech. The PO will almost always make my ballot (esp. if they volunteer!), though I will usually rank good speakers in the room higher.
First Affirmation and First Negation speaker should break down the description & effects of a piece of legislation. Generally quality > quantity in terms of number of speeches. Make sure you're active in the chamber for questioning (esp. when no one else wants to question).
World Schools: I have little experience with Worlds, but please signpost so I can keep up with where you are on the flow. Remain engaged in the round through POIs. Weighing/argument comparison is appreciated in the last few speeches, and engaging with your opponent's arguments is critical. Will update this portion of the paradigm if/when I judge more.
Policy/LD: The only experience I've got in these two events are a few rounds of UIL Policy & LD (traditional), but I (hopefully) should be able to flow the round. I prefer traditional over progressive argumentation, and make sure you're weighing/signposting throughout the round. See my PF paradigm on other topics (e.g. speed), and feel free to ask me questions before the round on anything specific!
First off, anything racist, homophobic, or xenophobic will be immediately voted down. I am okay with speed and spreading. For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace and organization. I will flow with you to keep up, but I appreciate signposting. You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps. Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off-limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round. However, if you run a total world domination case, make sure it is well articulated and makes sense, I love world domination arguments, but only if they make sense.
hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.
1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline
2. defense is sticky
3. PLEASE signpost. I will cry if you don't.
4. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.
5. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.
6. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.
7. I'm fine with speed. if you think it's going to be rlly fast, just send me your speech doc before just so we avoid any issues
Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.
Theory: I will probably never vote off of it, especially if it is paraphrase or disclosure theory. If you are gonna run it in front of me, make sure you do a good job and thoroughly explain your argument.
Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.
Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.
I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.
Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being a dick)
If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.
If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary
Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact email@example.com for chains, Facebook or firstname.lastname@example.org otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.
1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.
1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).