Tabroom.com

MDTA JVNovice State Championship

2020 — Online, MN/US

Novice PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Abhilash Ari Eagan High School

Sonia Baig The Blake School None

Sophie Boes Lourdes High School None

Jacqueline Bucaro Benilde-St. Margaret's High School

Prasenjit Chakraborty Eden Prairie High School None

Vincent Cheng St Paul Academy and Summit School

Last changed on Wed January 11, 2023 at 3:50 PM CDT

1. I am generally predisposed to teams that feel like they are attempting to persuade me, the judge, vs. exclusively their opponent. Many debates get too deeply into the weeds and fail to provide some kind of clear, overarching narrative — similarly, individual arguments are too often under warranted, with no analysis, and without a clear resolution of existing clash. Debate, to me, feels the most valuable and enjoyable when the skills demonstrated seem transferable / relevant to real-life argumentation and discourse — this means accurately tagged arguments that are developed throughout the round and rebuttals that show clear engagement with the content of opponent’s arguments. I prefer summaries that are not pseudo-rebuttals and that clearly explicate the narrative of the team while also providing offensively-minded voters and substantive weighing.

2. Evidence / in-round ethics are both extremely important to me. If at any point it becomes clear that a team is mis-representing, mis-labeling or otherwise abusing evidence, there will be a severe reduction in speaker points. I am also open to dropping the team if it seems like it’s given them an unfair competitive advantage. Because of all this, I am generally against paraphrasing unless the paraphrased content absolutely adheres to the content of the original source.

3. In-round civility is extremely important to me. Teams that are overly aggressive in crossfire, steal prep, go well over on time, or take forever when pulling up evidence will have reduced speaker points. Teams that cross over from rudeness into racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc… will be dropped (this includes arguments that contain racist, sexist, etc...warranting)

4. I understand the necessity for speed and heavily truncated argumentation in some rounds but generally have an overwhelming preference for a conversational pace and clear analysis. As such, I dislike the use of debate jargon and overuse of debate community patter (“A couple problems here” “This evidence is really, really clear!” “Recognize -”).

5. I will do my best to vote strictly off the flow but even within that paradigm it’s impossible to remain absolutely divorced from some degree of subjective decision-making over the course of a round. Thus, as with any judge, whether explicitly stated or not, I’m going to be heavily predisposed to the arguments that make coherent sense to me, starting from the constructive. Too many rebuttals and cases feel like ransom notes in which two or three words from thousands of evidence sources have been copy and pasted together to form something borderline incoherent. To put it another way — I’m not against surprising or novel argumentation but if something seems fake, it’ll feel weaker to me in a round. That being said, I want to limit judge intervention as much as possible and will do everything possible to not incorporate things external to what’s been argued in the round.

The best debates I’ve seen always seem to leave both debaters feeling like they’ve had fun. I’m confident that fulfilling these five preferences will lead to a strong round more often than not. Thank you!

Addition: I’m open to Ks and other kinds of experimental debate. I haven’t had a lot of experience judging them and the ones I’ve seen have generally been deeply unconvincing but I’m not against them at all

Sarah Crowley Lourdes High School None

Lan Do East Ridge High School

Public Forum

~~I would categorize myself as a flay+ judge, but I would much rather see whatever style of debate that you are most comfortable with.~~ I think the most important thing for me is for you to extend the arguments that you want to and tell me where to extend it (signpost or u get dropped). This includes defense on the opponent's case as well. If you don't extend claim, warrant, and impact of turns/case args or drop defense on it, there's a good chance I'm not going to weigh it.

I would also like to tell you guys to chill out. This is a high school activity, so don't be rude in cross, don't freak out if the opponent goes one second over in prep or case, and don't take things too seriously/personally.

Theory/Ks

A note on theory: Unless the opponent actually does something egregious, don't run it. This DOES NOT include disclosure on the wiki. In my view, theory is often a way to cop an easy win without debating. Don't confuse this with Ks though, because Ks are super fun and underused in PF.

Evidence Exchange and Standards

If you take more than two minutes to send a card or if you call for a card that is obviously true, I'm going to detract speaker points. Also, please don't try to use bad evidence. It's unethical and is one of the main things that makes debate toxic. With that being said, I am probably not going to look into your evidence unless the opponent makes it clear that I should do so unless it's an absolutely outrageous claim.

Disclosure

I'll try to ask if you guys want me to disclose but I might forget. If you want me to disclose and I forget then remind me. I will also try to give feedback at the end. I encourage you to ask questions and treat each round as a learning experience.

Ways to Get High Speaks

The way I do speaks is I start at 30 and dock throughout the round, so even if you're not outstanding, you can still get high speaks by not being absolutely booty. I'll try to give as high speaks as I can (within reason).

30 - Exceptional speaker, ~TOC level

29 - Good

28 - Average

27 - Could use some work

1. Be coherent and signpost properly. Don't just spit off fifteen card names and call it a day.

2. Have good cross. A good cross is one of the best ways to display your complete knowledge of a topic and is one of the more useful real-life skills to have.

3. Weigh. I'm hesitant to put this in the speaker points section because it's more of a flow thing, but weighing is important for each speaker to do thoroughly.

4. Don't be a novice (I'm KIDDING stop cryinggggg lmao)

5. Read all of my paradigm ?!?!

Have fun and debate well!

Congress

I debated Congress in high school, so I would like to think I'm at least somewhat knowledgeable in the category. With that being said, I didn't do nearly as much of it as I did PF, so here's some of my preferences.

Actually Debate

I get really annoyed when people in congress don't engage and just read off prewritten speeches. That's not how it works - you need to give extemp speeches attacking and defending your respective sides.

Keep Track of Precedence and Recency

I'm super bad at this, so keep each other accountable.

No Softball Questions

Softball questions completely destroy the purpose of debate. Not only will it hurt your speaker points, but it also is part of the reason congress is so boring at lower levels.

Don't Take It So Seriously

For some reason, I always feel like Congress kids are so toxic for no reason. Have fun with it and make sure that other people have fun too

That's basically it. Do your best!

Lan Do

P.S. If you read this, follow my Spotify @lan_do1 and I'll give you higher speaks ?!?! (https://open.spotify.com/user/lan_do?si=a403d6ac370a4d6f)

Johan Dominguez-Lopez Benilde-St. Margaret's High School

Joshua Enebo The Blake School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:58 AM CDT

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

Matt Frantz Eden Prairie High School

Muthu Ganapathy East Ridge High School None

Andrea Hagape Eagan High School

Last changed on Sat December 5, 2020 at 6:04 AM CDT

If you have any post-round questions:

andreahagape@gmail.com

What to expect from me:

I debated for 4 years on the Eagan High School debate team. I will be flowing the round, so I will be a bit more of a tech judge. Regardless of how I personally feel about the strength of an argument, I will still evaluate it based on how well it's run within the context of the round. I am okay with speed, as long as it doesn't interfere with the clarity of your speaking. I will vote for whoever has the most offense left standing at the end of the round. I will disclose at the end of the round.

How to win my vote (Road to the Ballot):

1. Weighing

In summary I expect clear weighing mechanisms, and when I say weighing mechanisms I mean you actually have to give a comparative analysis between your impacts and the impacts of your opponents. You can't just say "we outweigh on severity", you need to say "we outweigh on severity because we impact to death by war and our opponents impact to a few million dollars lost". If you give me weighing mechanisms like these I will evaluate your impacts first and then it simply becomes an issue of extending your links into those impacts.

2. Extensions

I will not extend your arguments for you. In order to get me to buy your argument at the end of the round, the entirety of your argument should be extended from Sum all the way to FF. This consists of your claim, warrant, and impact. You need both warrant and impact extensions for me to guarantee an evaluation of your argument. If you are missing any of these, the only way that I will still buy your argument is if your opponents never call you out on forgetting to extend.

Additional note: If you didn't talk about it in Sum but bring it up again in FF, I will not consider your argument. Sum is your most important speech in the round where you go over everything that you feel is relevant, so if it isn't mentioned there it shouldn't be mentioned at all later.

3. Frontlining

1st Speaking Team: I don't expect you to preempt your opponents responses to your case in Rebuttal, so Frontlining should take place in Summary.

2nd Speaking Team: I expect Frontlining in your Rebuttal, and if I don't get it in Rebuttal I won't flow it in Sum. You already know what your opponents have to say against your case by Rebuttal so take the time to defend yourself. Doing that in 2nd Sum is extremely unfair to your opponents because they can only begin to respond during FF and that shouldn't be what FF is for.

Both Teams: I won't accept last minute Frontlining that happens in FF.

4. New Evidence/Arguments

Summary: I am okay with new evidence in Sum as long as it is in support of a preexisting argument. No new arguments in Sum because Sum should be a condensing of the round. The only exception to this is if you are the 1st speaking team and are frontlining in Sum.

Final Focus: No new evidence or arguments should be made in FF. If you do this I will not regard the argument regardless of whether or not your opponent calls you out for it.

5. Signposting

Make sure to signpost and tell me where you are on the flow so it'll be easier for me to follow along. The easier it is for me to understand you, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

6. Etiquette

I don't appreciate overly aggressive speakers. You can condescend your opponents and interrupt them all you want, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger. I also don't appreciate it when people dance around questions in Cross. Your inability to answer questions about your arguments will only reflect poorly on you. Just answer the question and move on.

7. Summary

Summary is not a 2nd rebuttal. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL!!!!!!!! If you start your summary on your opponents case, my brain will start shutting down. Summary is supposed to be about why you have won the round, and proving your opponents wrong isn't the same as proving yourself right. Start your summary on what you are winning on, extend your case properly, and take the time to do weighing. Extending your partners responses from rebuttal is secondary to that (Note: This doesn't mean that you shouldn't also do this).

-----

Speaker Point Breakdown

I will be giving everyone a 28 with 3 exceptions:

1. You are so well spoken that you get a 30

2. You display that you aren't just a bad debater, but a bad person. In that case you will be getting a 25.

3. Idk I'm bored if you tell me something cool I'll give you and extra .5 speakers points because why not.

Credit to Simon Koch for the meme so they can't get mad at me for stealing :)

Andrew Hentges Lakeville North High School

Last changed on Sat February 5, 2022 at 4:34 AM CDT

Firstly, I learned most about debate from my coach Bryce Piotrowski. His opinions have shaped much of what I believe about debate and his paradigm can be found here.

Currently an assistant coach at Lakeville High School. I competed for them for 4 years and most competed in public forum on the national and local circuit.

Add me to the chain kentandrew957@gmail.com

Update for the Golden Desert Tournament this weekend:

I would encourage the debaters to send full constructive and rebuttal documents because of the biggest waste of time I have found in pf comes from calling for evidence. This makes the round much more efficient and overall a better use of the debate space then waiting for evidence that could have been all sent at once. Moreover, I think that the rounds in which include full documents of shared evidence allows for more clash and more educational debates in general.

Tech> truth if you need to contact me for any accommodations(kentandrew957@gmail.com)

** As long as national circuit tournaments continue to be online I expect that debaters are sending me at MINIMUM their constructives, but if you send all speech docs throughout the round that's completely acceptable too.

I will drop unethical evidence ethics. This is one of my biggest pet peeves are teams that read paraphrased evidence and think it's fine, then they either can't send a card or they will send me a link which I don't want to read. Just read cut evidence please!!

Speed:

I can handle basically anything. If you plan on spreading just don't. However, if this is your only strategy then anything over 250 wpm send me your doc.

Rebuttal:

For second rebuttal please please please front line offensive arguments at least. I would prefer collapsing. Moreover, I would prefer if you do not read an entire offensive overview in your second or first rebuttal that is a contention long because it is not strategic and will make me sad.

Summary and final focus:

They should mirror each other. Anything that is extended from summary is expected to be in final focus. Also, please oh god please weigh in these speeches. PReferably in both of them because it makes my job as the judge much much easier.

Speaker points:

My average will probs for most rounds be 29. I think that speaker points are honestly quite subjective and stupid. However, the more strategic your choices you make throughout the round the higher or lower it will go.

Theory/ Progressive arguments

I don't have that much experience with it at all. If you plan on running something that is not topical you should plan on not doing that.

I will not evaluate trix or any frivolous theory. I.E. I want the violation to actually be legitimate enough for me to actually want to vote off of. This would include disclosure(more info below) and paraphrase would def recommend to check back against abusive evidence ethics.

K's I think are really interesting to listen to, however, my experience with these arguments are very limited and don't have a ton of knowledge. This means that the more philo the arg is, the more likely I'm not going to know what is going on. As long as you explain the argument slowly, I should be fine.

Along with this I would encourage you to to disclose your cases on either the Wiki or email to your opponents. The reason why I enjoy it is because it seems as though the norm of PF is to run wack cases and have the opponents not have blocks to it. I think just overall disclosure makes for better debates and more educational ones.

Miscellaneous:

Have fun. You can wear whatever I literally don't care. I will give you 20's and L for any arguments that are exclusive to anyone in the round or outside of it.

I think that flex prep is pretty groovy, so if everyone is OK with this than lets do it.

Chad Holliday Nova debaters

Edison Jensen Champlin Park High School None

Evan Jiang Edina High School

Last changed on Tue December 1, 2020 at 10:35 AM CDT

*paradigm finessed from Ryan Zhu*

- PF debater from Edina JW, have competed nationally and locally.

If you wish to have any accommodations to make the debate safer/better or have any extra questions after reading the paradigm, contact me on Facebook Messenger or at evanjiang943@gmail.com

put me on the email chain if there is one: (email above)

tl:dr - tech > truth judge - tabula rasa. I'll flow the entire round, debate how you want - line by line/big picture idc. Everything in FF should be in summary.

- ay have fun! crack jokes - itll make the whole debate more fun and enjoyable

- i'll disclose the decision - if you think i messed up, roast me all you want, post round me, ask questions, idrc but don't be a dick.

speed: i can keep up and flow anywhere up to 300wpm. send a speech doc to me if you're gonna spread and make sure you aren't excluding your opponents.

weighing: pls pls weigh! weighing is the easiest way to win the round and structures how i view the debate. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

second rebuttal: second rebuttal should frontline at the least turns, but prolly defense also. split however you want (ie 2/2 or 3/1).

first summary: unfrontlined defense is sticky for first summary and can go from rebuttal to final focus. if it is frontlined, still need to extend it. turns should always be in summary.

theory: i'm good with most theory arguments as long as there is a real violation, like the other team not reading a content warning for a potentially triggering argument. i'm not gonna vote on friv theory (shoe theory, disclosure, paraphrase) tbh. paragraph theory is fine if you don't know how to write the full shell.

Ks: these are prolly fine if you want to run the argument, but slow down and explain it rly well. i won't know the lit base but I'll listen to the arg and know how they work.

tricks: no.

speaks: Average ~ 28.5 and go up/down the 0.1 scale from that. strategic decisions and collapsing earn a bump. i'm not gonna evaluate 30s theory tho.

evidence: cut cards are a must - whether you read those cut cards verbatim or paraphrase them is up to you. If anyone calls for ev, pls be able to give them the card promptly.

don't do these:

If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), you will get the L and lowest possible speaks. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

offensive overviews: don't pull out a new contention in rebuttal, i'm not going to vote for an unrelated DA out of second rebuttal, and i don't think that reading a new contention level arg in first rebuttal is strategic.

dumping unwarranted args: don't read as many arguments as you can if it means sacrificing the warranting and explanation. that being said, i'm fine with any crazy arguments as long as there are warrants and implications. quality > quantity plz.

Vamshi Jonnalagadda Eden Prairie High School

Akshay Kaura Eden Prairie High School

Mason Kelley Benilde-St. Margaret's High School None

Jiwoo Kim East Ridge High School None

Simon Koch Eagan High School

Last changed on Sat December 5, 2020 at 6:12 AM EDT

About Me:

I am a four-year PF debater and the captain of the Eagan PF team. I'm from South Korea (don't speak a lick of the language) and work at Starbucks, so if I see you drinking a Frappuccino, I will be upset (no speaker points or anything will be redacted). Add me to whatever we're using to share cards: simonkoch31@gmail.com

If you're a PF Novice:

-Be a good person

-Go fast, but be clear

-Offtime roadmaps are welcome but not required

-Explain why something happens

-Weigh weigh weigh

-Narrow things down as the round goes on

-Ignore the rest unless you want some fun reading material

More detailed paradigm

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

Be nice!

Debate is about fun! This means don't be:

-Racist

-Sexist

-Hyper aggressive (if you're a male)

-Homophobic

-Transphobic

-Abelist

-Ignorant

-An overall not fun person to be around.

For most people, this should be really easy...

Speed

Go for it! I'm no policy debater but I very much am able to keep up with a higher pace. If I don't flow it, and it becomes an issue, I will probably ask you to reread a point or two. PF is supposed to be about letting the public understand, so speed is fine, but spreading is not.

Weighing Arguments and Deciding the Round

I will always evaluate strong, well warranted arguments over arguments that have been "clean extended" but aren't well warranted.

What does this mean for you?

It means that if you want me to evaluate an argument, you need to explain to me:

A) what happens when you vote for you or the other team (explain your link chain, even if briefly),

B) why you are able to extend this argument (respond to arguments against it), and

C) what that argument means for the round (weigh).

If any response in rebuttal is not explained clearly enough the FIRST TIME I hear it, I will almost never vote for it. Don't card dump without explanation, it's not real debate. (ie: just saying "TURN Colby 16 says, NFU leads to increased chance of nuclear war." isn't enough. Either Colby or you need to explain to me WHY.

Summary is the MOST IMPORTANT speech in the round. You need to narrow down the debate to key issues, and explain to me why you're winning. This is where your final arguments need to be fleshed out. A summary is not a second rebuttal, so don't use it as such. Narrow things down. Tell me what to vote for you on.

Intervention

I try to intervene as little as possible in making the decision, so make it easy for me. Tell me what to vote for you on, and tell me why it matters. If neither team does this, or does it in a blippy way, I will be forced to make a decision for myself (and you don't want that).

Argument Extension

If it's not in summary, anything new in final focus will be dropped. Summary and FF should be more or less the same speech.

Speech-Specific Thoughts

Aff rebuttal has no need to re-explain their case (though if you run out of time it's better than sitting down early). If you can, spend all of your time on the Neg's case.

For Neg Rebuttal, please respond to the arguments they place on your case. Give yourself time to talk about both cases. If you're really cool, you'll spend some time weighing at the end.

I believe Aff Summary has the opportunity to read new cards and arguments to me. It's just fair in my eyes. I think that they need a chance to defend themselves. Don't forget to weigh, and give me voters. Give time to not just respond to them. Remember, Summary is not a second Rebuttal.

In Neg Summary, it's now too late in the round (in my opinion) to bring up new evidence/arguments that I haven't heard before. The Neg Summary should be about collapsing the round into its main issues, and explaining why you're winning, not responding to the Aff.

For both Final Focus's, give me voters. If they were in summary (which they should've been), you can just restate them. The Summary and the Final Focus should be very similar sounding.

In every crossfire, I'll have my volume on, but I will not be actively listening. Bring it up in speech if it's important.

Calling for Evidence

Email chain or shared google docs works fine. Email is at the top. If you're looking at a card, take prep. If it takes too long to find a card (over 4 minutes), I'll ask us to move on so we can take care of it later.

Theory/K's

Theory is more acceptable, but I have a relatively low tolerance for things like this in PF. If you are going to run theory against your opponent, you must be prepared to defend and explain it throughout the round. The two theory arguments I may evaluate in PF are bad evidence and evidence ethics (power tagging or misconstruing). I will not evaluate a paraphrasing argument unless I am proven the paraphrase is actually misconstruing or lying about the source.

Speaks (Stolen from Inko Bovenzi)

I raise speaks for novices (especially if you're debating in varsity because it's tough!).

Note: If tournaments force me to give different speaks to everyone in the round, say that I must round to the nearest .5, ban low points wins, or do anything else that restricts the speaks I can give, I will raise your speaks to remain in accordance with the rules.

29.6-30: You showed extraordinary technical ability in your debating, AND/OR you made a very interesting strategic decision that was not abusive, but granted you a great advantage in the round (ex. you went all in for a double turn your opponents made). If you make an interesting decision that turns out to be flawed, it will probably cost you the round, but I will reward the creativity with my speaker points.

29-29.5: You weighed well, covered the flow very well, made high-quality responses, and made the right strategic decisions in the round.

28-28.9: You didn't drop any major responses/arguments, you offered some weighing, and condensed the round down to just one (max two) pieces of offense in the final two speeches.

Note that if you got below a 28 you probably violated/ignored some part of my paradigm and/or significantly annoyed me.

27-27.9: Your flow coverage could have been better, but you addressed the major points of the round and added some new analysis.

26-26.9: You failed to speak, or spoke for a very small fraction of your time.

25 or below: You said/did something racist, sexist etc (speaks based on severity).

Ellie Konfrst Eagan High School

Last changed on Fri January 29, 2021 at 2:38 PM EDT

I competed in PF for four years for Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, both on the national and local circuits. I coached at NDF in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and for the 2020-21 season I'm an Assistant PF Coach at Eagan High School. I'm now a junior at the University of Notre Dame studying political science.

Don't be afraid to ask me questions about anything on here - I love answering them, and it shows me that you're making a serious effort to adapt to me, which I appreciate!

Add me to the email chain - ellie.konfrst@gmail.com.

How to win my ballot:

Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. This is probably the most important thing in my paradigm. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddy and don't get sorted out, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than a case arg riddled with ink and conflicting warranting.

You need to collapse in the second half of the round, it's a huge strategic mistake not to do that.

Use the persuasive nature of PF to your advantage. I evaluate the round off the flow, but that doesn't mean I'm not a human and can't be persuaded. Ultimately, your job is to convince me you're right. In close rounds, sometimes that's less logical and more emotional.

In the spirit of persuasion, you should be collapsing on a clear narrative in the second half of the round.

You have to weigh. If you don't weigh for me I'm forced to literally just pick things I think are more important, which means you lose control of the round, and I'm forced to interfere. Weighing should be clear in summary and final focus, and it might even be helpful to start weighing in rebuttal. (NOTE: In order to weigh your argument, you also have to win the argument. I've seen way too many teams weigh arguments that they lose, and that leaves me forced to intervene just as much as if you don't weigh. Remember, you need to extend warrants and impacts).

Extensions:

If you want it on the ballot, it needs to be in summary AND final focus.

Extend warrants and impacts. Make a point to especially extend impacts - I have literally no reason to vote for your argument if there's no impact, and failing to extend impacts in final focus can be fatal.

Defense you need to win needs to be extended in first summary. Especially with 3 minutes for summary, y'all - if you expect defense to be sticky from rebuttal to final focus you are not debating well.

You need to respond to your opponent's rebuttal if you're speaking 2nd. I prefer defense and offense, but I'm significantly more forgiving with dropped defense than dropped offense. If you speak second and you drop a turn read in first rebuttal, I consider it dropped for the round. With that said, please do not "extend" your case in 1st rebuttal, I will probably just stop listening.

Extend card names along with what the card says.

Conduct:

I know debate rounds can get heated, but I think it's important to respect your opponents. If you're unnecessarily aggressive, patronizing, or rude, I'll definitely dock your speaks. I'm not telling you to not be assertive or loud, but I can tell the difference between someone who believes their opponents are wrong and someone who believes their opponents are not even worth their time.

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. I'll drop you and tank your speaks.

This is a small thing, but I really dislike when teams call out strategic errors made by the other time in cross, i.e. "didn't you drop this in summary?" It's a waste of cross-ex time and it feels rude to me - tell me in a speech, don't turn it into a cross question.

Arguments:

I like interesting arguments a lot! Obviously squirrely/unwarranted args probably won't win you my ballot, but judging 6 double-flighted debate rounds in a row can get super monotonous, and I'll probably reward you if you at least make the round more interesting.

I'm open to any type of impacts, as long as you weigh them.

However, I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory/Ks/pre-fiat arguments you're gonna need to explain them to me in the simplest possible terms. To be clear, I have rarely encountered any kind of shell when debating or judging, and only rarely encountered ROB args as a debater. I am pretty uncomfortable evaluating these arguments and while I'll evaluate them as best I can, you run them at your own risk.

Framework:

I will evaluate under whatever framework is presented to me in the round.

That means, if you drop your opponent's framework, I will weigh the round based on that.

I'm super hesitant to use framework brought up in 2nd rebuttal, especially if it fundamentally alters the way I need to evaluate the debate. If your framework is something very different from a CBA (e.g. deontology) it needs to be in constructive.

I love weighing overviews and will 100% evaluate them as long as they're brought up by rebuttals.

Evidence:

If you tell me to call for a card OR seeing a card is necessary in order for me to make my decision, I'll call for it.

When sharing evidence with either me or your opponents, the evidence should be in cut card form or a highlighted PDF. Sending just a link is unfair to your opponents and annoying to me!

Don't paraphrase, however I tend to be pretty lenient on evidence ethics. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if the evidence didn't exist. I'm not opposed to dropping teams solely on terrible evidence ethics, but you'd probably have to act pretty awfully in order for me to do so.

Other stuff:

I talk really fast in real life, and I talked really fast in debate, so I can handle max PF speeds. Spreading is harder online and early in the morning - I'll do my best, but remember that if I don't get stuff on my flow because you were talking too fast that's your fault. With that said, if you are clearly speaking too fast for your opponents, I'll probably dock your speaks - I think that's rude and exclusionary for an event that's supposed to be open for anyone.

Please time yourselves and your opponents! I am not timing and will let you keep talking if no one else stops you, which just makes the round last longer and is unfair to everyone else.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I LOVE roadmaps. They should be brief, and I can tell when teams use it to steal prep, but if you do it well I will love you. I don't think it ever hurts to make sure you and your judge are on the same page.

This is also why it's crucial for you to signpost. There's nothing worse than you giving killer responses, but me missing them because you lost me in your speech.

You should be using voters in summary/final focus! It's not a dealbreaker for me but it will make me like you more and I'll probably boost your speaks. It also just makes for better debates, so do it!

If you have any questions I'd love to answer them, just ask me before the round!

Ryan Kraemer Benilde-St. Margaret's High School None

Sam Lagerstrom The Blake School

Kennan Li Eagan High School

Last changed on Fri December 4, 2020 at 12:04 PM CDT

I am a current varsity debater at Eagan High School.

Tech>Truth

I will vote off of any argument as long as solid evidence and analysis is provided.

Here are some of my general preferences:

I'll flow. Given that, I would prefer that you give me a clear roadmap and signpost. Please.

Warrants: Please extend warrants (reasons for why your impacts occur). No extended warrant means I have no idea on how to evaluate your impact because I don't know why your impact occurs, and then you feel sad because I didn't vote off the 284,193,829 lives that you supposedly save. I don't want you to feel sad, so please extend the reasoning.

2nd speaking rebuttal: Please please frontline your own case. If you don't, you're going to have a steep uphill battle to win case as I'll give lots of credence to the defense the first speaking team puts in your case.

Second Half: Please collapse in summary or maybe even in 2nd rebuttal. It makes your life easier, and also my life easier so I don't need to evaluate like four different things on the flow and you don't need to cover four things and then weigh in a two-minute final focus. For final voting issues, if I hear an argument in final focus, it better have been in summary.

Weighing: It is in your best interest to weigh, however, realize that if you don't win your extensions, you don't win access to weighing, so don't assume that you will automatically win after solid weighing analysis. In regards to solid weighing analysis, I prefer you weigh on probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Please don't use these weighing measures as buzzwords without giving comparative analysis. You can weigh on other measures, but it better make sense. Furthermore, try to explain to me why your weighing is more important than your opponents' weighing.

Speed: Slow down if you think a card or a piece of analysis is gonna be important (starting from the card author and date). Furthermore, if I or your opponents tell you to slow down, please do so. Since we're online, please go a little slower than usual -- I'll be lenient with time.

Progressive: If you try to run Ks or theory, I will listen, but note that I have little experience with these types of arguments, and you will have to be extremely articulate for me to vote off of it.

Cross: I likely will not listen to cross, so if something important is brought up, say it in a speech. Please be civil and polite. If you say something offensive, I will either tank your speaks or drop you.

Evidence: I would prefer if you read cards, but I am fine with paraphrasing so long as you don't misconstrue evidence. If you do, I will evaluate the round as if that evidence was never read as well as tank your speaks. Evidence ethics is important for making debate more inclusive.

I don't necessarily flow author names or source names, so when referring back to a piece of evidence, do a quick paraphrase of what the evidence said.

Please entertain me and maybe even include jokes as long as it's not at your opponents' expense. If you say "my opponents' case is like a golf course, it is covered in holes," and then you read exactly 9 responses on a contention, I will bump your speaks +0.5 because it shows that you have read this whole thing.

Hu Liu East Ridge High School

Nathan Loya Chaska High School

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2019 at 11:11 AM EDT

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how your treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

“Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

Keerthi Manikonda John Marshall High School None

Miriam Manna Robbinsdale Armstrong High School None

Calvin McMahon Wayzata

Ruby Miller Maple Grove

Trishika Mukkavalli East Ridge High School None

Cody Murphy Robbinsdale Armstrong High School None

Aleah Nelson Blaine

Henry Nomeland Lakeville North High School

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 6:36 AM CDT

henrynomeland@gmail.com

I look at the chain to check evidence. I won't be flowing off of a doc.

Debated circuit PF for Lakeville. I study Statistics at UW-Madison. Briefly did instructing/coaching after High School.

UPDATED FOR TOC 2024

I haven't thought a lot about debate since around 2021 so keep that in mind.

PLEASE be chill and nice to everyone in crossfire and during speeches.

I flow extensions and care about them being good.

Have cards. Avoid going for multiple case arguments in summary. Have your evidence ready to be sent I'm fed up with ridiculously long evidence exchanges.

My favorite arguments are relatively niche, relatively small impact scenarios concerning interest groups that get less attention in most debates.

I evaluate arguments and not the labels of arguments. Pointing out that your opponent's responses don't use the jargon and preconceived frameworks that you're anticipating them to use isn't going to win my ballot.

Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up

I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.

If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing. If there's no clash and no weighing I will be sad.

Prog Stuff

I would seriously prefer to judge a substance round. I don't understand postmodernism, philosophy, and the state of debate discourse over the past three years nearly well enough to judge these issues as accurately as many other judges. This being said,I will vote for reasonable arguments that you win and weigh. I debated theory a lot more than Ks when I was in debate. Frivolous theory, truth testing, and tricks are bad and my threshold for responses is low. In particularly egregious cases I will simply not vote for arguments along these lines, even if they survive to final focus.

Other Stuff

These people taught me debate:

Maddie Cook

Bryce Piotrowski

Gus Gerlach

I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.

I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules (there are probably rules that are bad, I promise I won't arbitrarily enforce bad rules or trivial technicalities). Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.

Sriram Nutulapati Eagan High School

Ava Olson The Blake School

Last changed on Thu December 15, 2022 at 6:34 PM CDT

Did public forum debate at Blake for 4 years (Blake '21)

email chain (blakedocs@googlegroups.com) - please put what the tournament, round number, and name of both teams

"tech>truth"

cards >>>>> paraphrasing -- all args need to have warrants

______________________________________________________

When it comes to evidence, read cards. At the very very least, you need to have a card with the full cite (not just the url) ready if your opponents call for your evidence. You need to produce a card if your opponents ask for it. I do not like long evidence exchanges - you should already have the card cut and ready to be sent.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline the answers from 1st rebuttal as well as answer the opponents case. Summary needs collapse and weigh. Summary and final focus need to mirror each other. In order for an argument to make it into my ballot, it must be in summary and final focus. Signpost everything.

Weighing: The very best way to get my ballot is to weigh. There absolutely needs to be comparative analysis in round. The earlier weighing happens in the round the better. Weighing should always come earlier in the round than second final focus. If there is no weighing in the round or the weighing comes too late, you may not like the decision I make. Weighing gives you the best opportunity to influence the outcome of my ballot.

Arguments need a link, warrant, and impact.

In order for something in crossfire to be flowed through, it must be brought into speeches.

I really do not have a lot of experience evaluating progressive argumentation. I am still learning how to evaluate progressive arguments. If you plan on reading any theory, kritiks, etc., please explain the arguments fully and clearly. I will do my best to evaluate them. That being said, if you are reading a progressive arg you probably want to decrease the speed that you read and extend the arg.

Be accountable for timing your own speeches, crossfires, and prep time.

I can flow public forum speed.

no tricks

don't read new ev that directly contradicts your links to get out of turns

Be respectful of your opponents and your partner. Racist/sexist/homophobic/any other hateful and offensive arguments won't be tolerated.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask!

hey Ale

Shailja Panchal Wayzata

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:27 AM CDT

i debated PF for 4 years at eagan high school and graduated in 2020. I've been coaching for PF since then for wayzata high school.

***add me to the email chain! (email chain > doc) feel free to ask me questions before the round or to shoot me an email: shailja.p22@gmail.com

general:

- offtime road map: My biggest pet peeve is when you give me an offtime road map and then don't follow it. keep it short and really I just need to know where you are starting unless you are doing something weird.

- speed: i consider myself a flow judge. tech>truth. a case doc doesn't replace your speech. i can flow pretty fast but don't spread. naturally, the slower you go the more i comprehend. so do with that as you will.

- ks, theory, etc... : I a) i don't have enough experience with these kinds of arguments and thus don't feel comfortable evaluating them and b) think they create a barrier in the debate space.

- framework: this is pretty obvious - if a team gives me a framework I will vote off of that (as long as it makes sense) - if you have a FW and the other team doesn't that doesn't mean you win.

plz do not aggressively post-round me :) ask me questions but don't yell at me - i'm not going to switch my decision

how to win my vote:

- weighing: say the words " we outweigh because..." it makes it easier for me.

- signposting: just do it.

- voters: have them and write the ballot for me.

- evidence: evidence ethics have gotten so bad in debate these days. don't take forever to find evidence (speaks will go down). make sure you have cut cards. do not paraphrase.

- extensions: don't just extend through "ink". don't just say "flow Smith over". explain to me what smith says and why it matters in the context of the round. make sure if you say something final focus it is/actually was in summary and vice-versa. if you are the second speaking team you must respond to offense from 1st rebuttal. defense is not sticky. this is given, but if you want me to vote for it at the end of the round have it in every speech.

- overall, please have fun while still being nice and respectful. no one likes to watch an aggressive debate round.

Alessandro Perri The Blake School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

The most important thing to adapt to me: please make complete arguments. If you are not explaining things, you will be very frustrated by my decision. In all honesty, I think my bar on this is now well above the average PF tech judge, so adapt accordingly, at least if you'd like high speaks. I reserve the right to think about your arguments.

Background: I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I now compete in APDA and BP for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

My primary academic interests are related to insurgency, state violence, and terrorism. This does not mean anything except to say that I will be happy if you evince a nuanced understanding of these issues and be disappointed if you don't.

To be upfront: I have not judged PF in a year, nor have I done topic research in quite some time. I am still fine with speed and can evaluate a flow, but it may behoove you to spend just a little extra time on explanation instead of presuming I know the nuances of arguments even if you think they are obvious.

General: tech > truth, I guess. I am really uninterested at this point by arguments that are facially untrue or implausible, but I won't intervene since I know debaters don't like that. I will reward smart debating-- in-depth analysis of actor incentives, clever technical setup, genuine impact comparison, and analytics that point out internal flaws in silly arguments-- with speaker points. I like to see debaters that are knowledgeable about the topic and the world at large. I do not like to see debaters that crow about their opponents missing a "hidden link" or doing weighing to the effect of "prioritize strength of link because it leads to less intervention".

Mechanics: defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st, any speed fine but I won't flow your doc, you must bite defense in the subsequent speech to which it is read to kick turns, I will not evaluate defense you read on yourself, no offensive arguments, you'll lose if you're rude (seriously) or if you cannot produce evidence. Feel free to post-round as much as you like.

Progressive debating: I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think the vast majority of critical authors have deeply wrong and ill-advised views and I would like to see more teams make that argument. I have no priors on theory. I do think that cut cards and disclosure are good but I'm well past the point of caring enough to intervene. Fairness bad arguments are illogical. The only arguments I will actively disregard are IVIs or aggressively frivolous theory; these are an abomination, please refrain.

Any questions-- ask. I do actually have opinions on PF, I just don't think they are particularly relevant to how I judge anymore.

Holly Restad East Ridge High School None

Suhail Rizvi St Paul Academy and Summit School 8 rounds None

Annika Rock St Paul Academy and Summit School None

Mandie Ross Chaska High School

Last changed on Thu August 27, 2020 at 5:13 AM CDT

I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how your treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

“Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

Ritisha Senapati Eastview High School None

Daniel Summers Champlin Park High School None

Hannah Sweet The Blake School

Last changed on Sun December 18, 2022 at 6:35 AM CDT

**If you are waiting for the first flight to finish, please use the time to set up the email chain so we can begin as quickly as possible - it would make me very happy!**

Hi, I’m Hannah (she/her).

A few things about me:

- I am a recent graduate of the Blake School and I did PF on the national circuit throughout my time there. I currently coach for Blake.

- I am generally pretty flexible when it comes to how you debate. My one preference is speed. Please do not spread. Too often it is super unclear and I can't understand it. Overall do what makes you comfortable :)

- Sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and racism are still all too common in debate and will not be tolerated. I will give you a loss and terrible speaker points if you make your opponents or anyone in the space feel uncomfortable

- I am in college, so my life is very busy. I have very limited topic knowledge so please explain things

Please add me to the email chain: hannahjsweet@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain and feel free to contact me after the round if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

How I evaluate rounds and generally what I would like to see:

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline all turns and frontline defense.

- Dropped turns are considered offense for the other team if they choose to capitalize on it.

- The Back Half: In order for me to vote on something (offense, defense, and weighing), it needs to be in the summary and the final focus. Also please collapse. Don't try to win every single point in the debate. The summary and final focus should narrow the round down to a few key ideas. The depth of your arguments is much more important than the number of arguments you make.

- Weighing: Weighing is the first place I look when I make my decision. The sooner you weigh, the better. Additionally, it is important that your weighing is comparative. If there are multiple weighing mechanisms in the round, please explain why your mechanisms are more important.

- Evidence: Evidence is incredibly important to winning my ballot. Debate is an educational activity and research is a key part of that learning. It is important that you site a reputable author and that you are reading cards. I have found that it is extremely easy, whether intentional or unintentional, to misrepresent evidence when you paraphrase. Additionally, academics are held to an extremely high level of scrutiny when it comes to their writing. Directly quoting these sources will a, ensure that what you are saying is backed up by those who are experts within their discipline, and b, it will also boost your persuasion. Evidence quoting an expert in that field is much more convincing than an analytic.

If you are paraphrasing, which would make me sad but I understand that it is hard to change your practices for a single round, please make sure you are doing the following:

- Per NSDA rules, please have a cut card or the paragraph readily available for your opponent or me to see if requested. Your opponents should not need to take prep to sort through your PDF and we should not be waiting longer than a minute for you to produce evidence. If you can't quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow.

- You still need to cite authors and read warrants. Reading 40 different paraphrased arguments in rebuttal does nothing to enhance the debate. You are simply reading blippy arguments that do little to increase the depth of the round.

- Progressive argumentation:

I am a fan of progressive debate. I think Ks and theory if done well and used properly, can make the debate space a much safer and more inclusive community. However, there are a few things you should know if you decide to run a progressive argument.

- I ran a lot of critical cases when I debated, but I never ran a full-on K. While I am familiar with some of the literature, you will have to explain some of it to me.

- I have only been in a few rounds where theory has been read. I am familiar with the structure of a shell and I will evaluate the shell the same way I would evaluate any other type of argument, but you may need to slow things down a bit for me.

- I am not a fan of frivolous theory. If you run arguments such as shoe theory or 30 speaks theory, I won't vote on it.

- I am more biased towards arguments like paraphrasing bad and disclosure good. I generally think these practices are good for the community. That being said, I will still evaluate the shell and if you win the shell and make the implication that it wins you the round, I will still vote for you. I will just be sad doing it :(

Tori Thomas Robbinsdale Armstrong High School None

Rachel Utter Eagan High School None

Talia Williams Moorhead High School

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:16 AM CDT

My pronouns are she/her/hers. My background: competed in PF throughout high school, have spent the past 4 years judging both PF and LD.

Have fun! Take the round seriously, but also realize that you are not actually shaping world policy, so be chill. My main things I want to see in a round:

- be a good person in general: no -isms, don’t be rude to opponents, don’t steal prep or go way over time

- come prepared: have plenty of evidence and produce it quickly (evidence matters lots to me), know your speeches well and be ready for cross. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if they are hotly contested. Summarizing is okay, just be honest with it and have the full card ready right away.

- guide me through the round: narrow down to key voters, strategically collapse as needed, tell me where and why I should vote for you, and please for the love of god weigh. DO NOT say 'extend John Doe '15' without telling me what John Doe '15 says. I don't flow the name of the card, I flow the evidence itself.

-speaking skills: eye contact, pace of speaking (I am okay with spreading, however realize that if I cannot understand you, you will loose speaker points), enunciation, clarity, etc - especially important in constructive, since you should know the speech well enough to give it well. Also, in cross, please don't yell or talk over your opponent. Just be polite.

- I vote off the flow, essentially, so make my flow clear. That being said, a note on cross-fire - I love cross-fire, and as a result I very rarely flow crossfire. Therefore if something important comes up in cross, bring it up in a speech to be sure that it makes it on my flow.

A note on theory: I'm not a huge fan of theory. Unless there is super clear abuse, then I will likely not vote for theory. Also, I will never ever buy disclosure theory. Debate is about the resolution, stick to it.

Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make debate more accessible to you before the round-- trigger/content warnings are appreciated in making debate a more accessible space. If you have any questions before the round, ask away. Looking forward to a great round!

Lizzie Williamson Chanhassen High School

Last changed on Fri January 21, 2022 at 5:32 PM CDT

Hi there!

I'm Lizzie. I am currently a junior majoring in International Studies at American University in Washington DC. I graduated from Chanhassen High School (MN) after having competed in Public Forum and a little Congress, both locally and nationally.

A couple of general things you know about me as a judge, no matter the category:

1) I spent all four years of high school doing this, so I can pretty easily keep up with the pace and jargon of debate. However, given that I only judge when I'm able, I don't really have a grasp on the intricacies of resolutions, what the stock arguments are, what the big cards are, etc. This just means you need to do the work of explaining your content and not just give me quick taglines or card names.

2) On balance, I consider myself a flow judge. This is your round to debate so I don't want to interfere with my own thoughts and opinions, but I'm also not going to flow through wack arguments that are blatantly unsupported by evidence, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist...you get the idea. In other words, I'll judge by the flow unless I'm given a significant reason to intervene.

3) On the tech vs truth debate, I tend to lean towards truth. The value of the activity post-HS comes from the ability to research, write, and argue each side of a resolution reasonably and effectively, so I want to see that. I'm all for utilizing technical tactics if it's improving the overall quality of debate, but not as a way to befuddle or confuse your opponents enough to win - that makes this activity useless to both you and me in the long run.

I have some of my preferences below, but please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Speed: I can really do any speeds that are considered appropriate for Public Forum. I will raise my hand if you are going too fast, but I shouldn't have to.

General Argumentation: Claim, Warrant, Impact. I look for these three elements pretty much everywhere, especially in the constructive and rebuttal. I still want you to at least try and get them in the summary and FF. If you only give me card names with no explanation, I will not flow it--at least give me the tagline.

Summary and FF: This is what I like to see:

1. Voters: It's fine if you go down both sides of the flow, but telling what's most important while you do it is what shows me you've done some critical analysis.

2. Weighing: Please do it. You can use weighing terminology to save a little time, but I still need analysis.

3. Clash: Do not make your voters a shorter version of your case and hardly talk about your opponents.

4. Consistency: Try to keep both speeches consistent and build off each other.

Signposting and Roadmaps: I love signposting and I encourage brief roadmaps.

Calling Cards: Please only ask to see a card if it is absolutely necessary. It takes a lot of time that we don't have when the round needs to get done as quickly as possible. If you do ask to see a card, I expect you to do something with it in future speeches. This is in no way discouraging calling cards, just a word of caution to make sure that they are being called for reasonably. I will not call for any cards/evidence at the end of the round unless you explicitly ask me to and tell me why.

Progressive Stuff: Because PF is supposed to be a lay/accessible category, it's my belief that Kritiks, Theory, Topicalities, etc do not have a place in a PF round. However, I've heard rumblings that this is becoming more common. Given that, if you can clearly explain to me what your K, T, Theory, etc. is and why it is necessary for the round (not just why it is necessary so you can win), I may accept it. Generally, I still prefer that everyone actually debate the resolution, so if you can do that, I would appreciate it.

The most important thing: Your opponents are humans first, debaters second. If you are overly aggressive or rude during the round, your speaks will suffer greatly and it may cost you the round. Do not talk over your opponent - I dealt with this far too often as a female 2nd speaker, so I am not sympathetic to those who think that it's a way to win.

TL;DR: Debate the resolution, do the work for me, keep the round moving and be nice to each other

Isaac Wu Edina High School

Last changed on Mon September 20, 2021 at 4:16 PM CDT

Hey! I am a former varsity debater from Edina High School in Minnesota. If you need anything (extra questions/accommodations), contact me on Facebook or at iywu@usc.edu

First and foremost, I am a tech > truth judge, so if you win an argument and extend and weigh the argument, you will probably win my ballot.

Speed: I can keep up and flow however fast you go, but make sure that you are not going too fast for your opponent. However, if you're spreading unclearly, I'm probably going to stop flowing and call clear. If you can't understand/flow what your opponent is saying, please say "speed" or "clear".

Extensions: While I think that creating a story is really important, I think that you should also extend cards in Summary/FF to go with the story. PLEASE extend cards in your final 2 speeches to win your arguments and win the round.

Second Rebuttal: I think that speaking second in the round is extremely beneficial but can be abused easily. I think that you should come back to your case as well and frontline the turns and best defense on your side. Not only do I think that it makes the debate a bit fairer, but it can also be very strategic.

First Summary: You don't need to extend defense from rebuttal if it is uncovered in the second rebuttal, but you should be extending turns since they generate offense for you.

Disclosure: You don't need to disclose, I probably won't vote on disclosure theory.

Progressive Args: I'm not that comfortable with progressive args, but I'm willing to listen to them as long as they are well-warranted and explained.

THINGS I LIKE

WEIGHING: Weighing is something that can easily win my ballot. Weighing is really important to compare the arguments from both sides that have been brought up in the round. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

SIGNPOSTING: Signposting where you are on the flow is really important to let me know where you are so I can flow what you are saying. If you don't signpost, I might miss something really important, just because I don't know where you are.

EXPLANATIONS: Please explain all of your arguments and how they are true. Don't just say "extend our cards/contentions", explain the argument and the entire link story. If you explain your entire argument and extend evidence along with it, I will be very inclined to vote for you.

EVIDENCE COMPARISON: If there are 2 cards in the round that directly contradict with each other, explain why I should prefer your evidence via postdate, warrants, credentials, etc.

SUMMARY AND FF COHESION: The final 2 speeches in the round for each side should mirror each other. Your speeches should go for the same arguments and rhetoric, with the summary collapsing on the argument and the final focus also going for that same thing. Make sure your voting issues are in both summary and final focus, or else voting for you is going to be very hard.

THINGS I DON'T LIKE:

RUDENESS: If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), I am ~NOT AFRAID TO GIVE YOU BELOW 10 SPEAKER POINTS~ and the L. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

MISCONSTRUING EVIDENCE: Your evidence should say what you say it says. If needed, read full cards to make this fair. If I think that a piece of evidence is too good to be true or someone tells me to call for it, I will call for the evidence after the round.

CARD CALLING DELAYING: If your opponents call for a card, please be able to pull it up in a reasonable amount of time. If you are unable to produce it in a minute or so, I will just cross the evidence off of the flow.

EXTENDING THROUGH INK: If you are going for a response/argument, and your opponents respond to it, please respond to the response. Extending your argument through their responses makes the round extremely messy as I don't know whether to buy their responses or your argument.

If you take no prep and actually win the round, I'll give you a 30.

Ryan Zhu Edina High School

Last changed on Sat January 29, 2022 at 4:26 AM CDT

Edina '21 - Duke '25

I debated for Edina MZ in Minnesota and qualified to TOC all 4 years of high school.

If you wish to have any accommodations to make the debate safer/better or have any extra questions after reading the paradigm, contact me on Facebook Messenger or @ ryan.zhu@duke.edu

put me on the email chain if there is one: (email above)

for Columbia!: please start the round on time <3

tl:dr - tech > truth judge - tabula rasa. I'll flow the entire round, debate how you want - line by line/big picture idc - time yourselves - Everything in FF should be in summary.

- have fun! crack jokes - itll make the whole debate more fun and enjoyable

- sit, stand, wear casual clothes, wear formal clothes, I'm good with whatever makes y'all most comfortable

- i'll disclose at the end of the round if y'all want

speed: i can keep up and flow anywhere up to 300wpm. send a speech doc to me if you're gonna spread and make sure you aren't excluding your opponents. be smart

weighing: pls pls weigh! weighing is the easiest way to win the round and structures how i view the debate. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

second rebuttal: second rebuttal should frontline at the least turns, but prolly defense also. split however you want (ie 2/2 or 3/1).

first summary: unfrontlined defense is sticky for first summary and can go from rebuttal to final focus. if it is frontlined, still need to extend it. turns should always be in summary.

theory: i'm good with theory arguments as long as there is a real violation, like the other team not reading a content warning for a potentially triggering argument. i'm not gonna vote on friv theory (like shoe theory). read paraphrase theory at your own risk (make sure there's an actual violation with their ev, don't run it just to run it). paragraph theory is fine if you don't know how to write the full shell.

Ks: run at your own risk, but explain it well. I'll listen to the arg and know how they work but prolly won't know the lit base that well.

tricks: no. just don't

speaks: Average ~ 28.5 and go up/down the 0.1 scale from that. strategic decisions and collapsing earn a bump. i'm not gonna evaluate 30s theory.

evidence: cut cards are a must - whether you read those cut cards verbatim or paraphrase them is up to you. If anyone calls for ev, plz be able to give them the card promptly or just send out speech docs. if you are paraphrasing and i call for evidence at the end of the round, plz give me the card and the paraphrase you read!

don't do these:

If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), you will get the L and lowest possible speaks. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

bad evidence: some evidence has gotten really bad, so i'll reserve the right to drop args or you entirely based on evidence violations - please don't let it come to this tho :)

dumping unwarranted args: don't read as many arguments as you can if it means sacrificing the warranting and explanation. that being said, i'm fine with any crazy arguments as long as there are warrants and implications. quality > quantity plz.

- if you have any more questions, anything in this paradigm applies to me too

Login to Tabroom

MDTA JVNovice State Championship

2020 — Online, MN/US

Novice PF Paradigm List

Judges