I have 3 years of experience competing in Public Forum debate in high school. I mainly want to see comparative weighing of arguments and evidence, especially in the final two speeches. I would prefer to see analysis driven debate rather than evidence dumps. Speed isn't really an issue as long as you speak clearly. If you have any questions for me please feel free to ask before the round.

Put me on the email chain before the round: sbaranga@gmail.com

I’m a parent of a sophomore LD debater at Westwood High School in Austin Texas.

With our current online debating situation, I do not care what you wear (as long as it is appropriate)

Short Paradigm: Speed section below this + tech over truth, I'll vote off of almost anything unless it's abusive or problematic, but you have to tell me how to vote by weighing and using your framework. Be nice to each other.

Speed: Go slow. I cannot understand speed. I will try to follow along with the case, but you need to be talking at or a little bit faster than conversational speed. If I do not hear your arguments, they will not end up on the flow and I will not use it to make a decision.

Case: I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.

Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine.

Layering: Tell me in round what matters the most/what should be evaluated first, including which impacts impacts

Other Preferences: I’m new to judging, so it might take me a while to make a decision and give the RFD, so please understand. I also like to give a lot of nonverbal experience after round, so remember to check your ballot and feel free to email me.
Be nice in cross, it'll earn you some speaker points. Just be nice to your opponent in general

Please include me on email chain if there is one amberbendersky@gmail.com

I’m a college senior at Texas A&M University who might be a bit rusty now.

My coach in HS was Stormee Massey who is now at Vancouver Debate Academy she did policy for 9 years and I used to watch her judge policy outrounds.

I am good with speed if you do not send a doc just make sure you are clear. I have extensive flows with each card written to help flow.

Also make sure if you run anything progressive your opponent knows/understands whatever your K, CP, DA, etc is doing (mainly this is for a progressive v traditional but still)

I did a little bit of PF but mostly LD in High School. I typically ran Ks both aff and neg or Theory or T. I also did run DAs and CPs but not as often.

LD: I do not care what you run, run what you want it is y'alls debate rounds and I want y'all to run what you are comfortable with and I will flow accordingly.

If you are neg and run theory I would like to also see you prove affs arguments are wrong along with being abusive because unless aff is straight up abusive on what neg can and can not do I will not typically vote off a neg T shell by itself.

Please have framework to give impacts.

• Framework: if y'all have same value and criterion/standard do not waste your time, if y'all have different ones do not spend too much time, give me a quick why yours matters more and I should weigh under your framework because then move on.

Wiki whatever does not matter to me. When I debated I used an empty flashdrive I named tortillas and passed it around the room. As long as you are clear what evidence you are reading who it is from and when that is what matters.

PF: I am good with like everything it is y'alls debate rounds run your cases how you want and I will flow accordingly just make sure you extend through each speech.

If you have any issues at all just get my attention and if you have any other questions just ask.

I am a relatively flow judge. I value weighing, and extension of case that you want to be judged off of. I expect most delinks or turns to be addressed.

i'm basically like a flay judge, tell me what to vote for and why.

Please treat me like a lay judge. Go slow and keep it simple. :)

Don't get super technical because i don't believe that's the way pf should have to be

3 min summaries mean please collapse and weigh

i dont like it when teams waste 20 extra mins in round not even looking at cards but pulling them up, so if u have to spend more than two mins trying to find called cards itll start eating into your prep - have your cards prepared

IN CONGRESS:
I expect to see plenty of clash. The event is called congressional DEBATE! Utilize questioning period effectively, and ask targeted questions. Analysis is the #1 priority

Debated (mostly) Policy for Vermillion HS from 2009 to 2014. Bachelor's from Beloit College with a major in Philosophy and a minor in Political Science.

I'm looking for a focus on clear argumentation and strategy, but do what you do best and you'll do fine.

Tech > truth except in rare cases.

Background: I retired from Coppell High School a few years ago where I taught Public Forum, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. I am assisting Coppell at the present time.

Judging Philosophy: While I don't think anyone can be truly tabula rasa, I try to ignore my bias as much as possible. I will listen to any argument you want to make as long as you have good evidence, and qualified sources. I expect weighing of impacts and any other reason why your argument is better than your opponents. Your strategy is your own business but if you expect me to vote for you I have to have strong impacts and comparisons to your opponents arguments that make sense.

Style: I have to hear you to flow your arguments. Because of this virtual world we are forced to live in you have to be clear and make sure you are being heard. I will say "clear" once. I prefer moderate to a little faster speed. Again, remember you are debating via computer.

I have judged Public Forum a lot this year.

f

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

I don't prefer judging policy debate, so if I am sitting in front of you as your judge in policy it is because no one else was available. I'll do my best for you, but consider me a "Comms" judge, a mom one to boot! Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

I've judged at the invitational, district, and regional levels since 2007 in the Southeast Texas region and for the Dallas-Fort Worth circuits. I prefer LD, PF, and Congress, but don't mind judging novice CX.

I consider myself a relatively laid-back judge that is adaptable to style based on region/competition. I can buy most arguments, no matter how crazy!

Speed/Spreading- I believe that speech and debate competitions are designed to develop your communication, critical thinking, and argumentation skills; therefore, I don't believe speeding and spreading are appropriate. Your goal is to deliver clear and concise arguments with good documentation and well-thought-out points. If you do this, there is no need to speed.

How do you know if you are speeding? If you are gasping for air, you are going too fast! If I can't take notes, you are going too fast. I usually do not partake in email chains, so it is your job to make sure I am able to flow based on your speech.

Timing- You are more than welcome to time yourself. I actually prefer it.

Sit vs Stand- You are welcome to do whatever is comfortable for you based on the classroom setup.

Prep Time- Use it! That's what it is there for.

CX- Ask clarifying questions that could help set up your arguments. Don't debate during CX.

Email Chains- Please exchange information and get this process done quickly and efficiently. I have been in rounds where we spent 10+ minutes exchanging emails. Have a paper copy of your case and evidence in case technology fails or takes too long. I do not join email chains. I like to judge the round based on what is said rather than reading it.

For LD, I prefer a more traditional, value-based debate, but I am open to a more progressive debate if that is the approach you want to take.

Evidence- I like to see that your case is well-documented from timely sources. However, please don't spend your debate arguing that your evidence is "more recent" or "more legitimate". State why you think this is the case and move on. Try not to make it the main argument of the round.

Thanks!

Dr. Christi Grudier

Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.

Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS

Now attending Southern Methodist University

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round

During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

Elkins '19 |TAMU'22| Rice '24

TLDR: Tech>Truth. My debate philosophy is that of the classic flow judge that I vote for the debater with the least mitigated link chain to the best-weighed impact.

Substance/LARP/Theory/K- 1|Heavy fwk- 2 |tricks etc...- 4

PF

1.I look heavily towards the terminal impacts at the end of the round so weighing/crystallization will ultimately be beneficial for you. Just saying, "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc..." does not qualify as proper weighing. Give me the actual reasons/stats as to "how and why" you outweigh on all those fronts.

2. If you guys arrive at the same terminal impact ie; poverty, climate change, war, etc... the first place I look at is the strength of link on both sides.

3.FWK- I default to cost-benefit analysis unless any other fwk is given in round. If any other framework is given in the round, I will hold you to a higher standard in defending that framework. Overviews are fine with me but must come in the first rebuttal (no offensive overviews in the 2nd rebuttal).

4. If you are the 2nd speaking team, you must frontline all offense stemming from the first team's rebuttal. It is preferable if you frontline a good majority of the defense. Any dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.

5.Anything said in final focus must have been alluded to in the summary.You guys literally have an extra minute of prep and time for your summary so there should be no excuses in not extending terminal defense and turns AND do some solid weighing. That being said... PLEASE EXTEND YOUR Turns/Terminal Def etc... through both Summary and Final Focus.

6. I know paraphrasing abuse has become more relevant these days so I will typically not have much leniency if I call for evidence and your paraphrasing completely misrepresents the evidence. That being said, it would be a safer bet not to paraphrase. Also, when I call for evidence, I will need to look at the entire article.

7. Speed is fine, just slow down on warrants, authors, and anything extremely important, ie; weighing/stats. But make sure there is clarity and organization (line by line) in all speeches.

8.Speaks: 28-30 usually. If you strategize really well and weigh/crystallize well, I'll give you a 29.5, even if you catch an L.

LD

DA's/Advantages

A lot of advantages/DAs are super contrived, and it’s easy to convince me that impacts short of extinction should matter more. I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." If accessing extinction specifically, as opposed to just a big non-existential impact, is important to your impact-framing arguments, then you should justify that last internal link.

CP

Make sure you specify the status of your Counter Plan in the constructive. If you do not have a properly warranted solvency advocate in the constructive, the chances that I will vote on the counter plan are slim to none. Make sure you establish a strong link chain and ensure that the plan itself is competitive.

Theory/T

Unless it's Disclosure theory, I WILL NOT evaluate any out-of-round abuse. If you want theory to be the highest layer of offense in the debate, make sure you explicitly state it. The only exceptions are theory shells which involve actual real-world norm-setting, that isn't ridiculous (like shoes and clothes theory). For Theory/T, I default to competing interps and Drop the Argument.

Kritiks

I can always appreciate a well-written Kritik, however, do not make an attempt to commodify for the sake of picking up a ballot. Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. Minimum standard of clarity: don't phrase your alternative as an infinitive.None of this "the alt is: to reject, to challenge, to deconstruct, etc" business. It needs a clearly specified actor.

+1 speaker pt for a Starbucks frappuccino mocha/vanilla iced coffee

I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic.

If you have any questions, email me at ppj1002@gmail.com

- also for the email chain if need be^

I am a parent judge and have been judging the debate tournaments for last 5 years.

When I am judging the debate, I am looking for teams that are able to

- Focus on the topic at hand

- Support their topic with credible evidence

- Are respectful to the views of the other teams, while clearly calling out why they feel that the opposing team views are not comprehensive and why their own case is better.

- Are clear in articulation and are not rushed

Updated for Fall 2021:

I'm currently a sophomore at Rice University studying natural sciences. I have roughly 3 years of PF experience from high school.

Some general things to keep in mind:

a. Please be a nice person. I encourage you to debate however you want, but don't cross any lines while doing so or else your speaker points will suffer.

b. Please add me to the email chain or any other evidence-sharing equivalent if it exists. My email is lidaniel355@gmail.com

c. For online debate specifically, I strongly encourage (but don't require) that you keep your camera on for the entirety of the round.

For Public Forum:

a. I'll vote off of the least mitigated narrative that has a clearly extended impact.

b. Please weigh as early as summary, it makes evaluating rounds much easier.

c. Frontlining is necessary in second rebuttal.

d. Anything dropped is conceded for the purposes of the round.

e. Evidence ethics is pretty awful in PF debate. If you think your opponent has egregiously misconstrued an important piece of evidence, you can ask me to call for the evidence during your speeches (I won't entertain these requests if it's after the round or during prep time). I have no problem dropping entire arguments over bad evidence and in extreme cases, I'm not entirely impartial to the idea of directly dropping the team.

f. I think there is merit to many theory arguments, but I would still advise not to read them in front of me because I don't have the background to competently evaluate theory debates. Same goes for basically any other form of "progressive" argumentation.

I am a parent judge.

Also disregard the last update.

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: mercado.angelicaarely@gmail.com

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
5. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
6. I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Ian Miller

I debated at Grapevine and OU. I help coach Grapevine in PF and CX.

ian.m11er1@gmail.com

Being nice is important when it comes to speaker points. If your opponent is unfamiliar with spreading, slow down a bit. If your opponent seems like they are a lot worse than you, don't be rude to them. If an argument could include a trigger warning, ask before the round. If you’re giving evidence to your opponent, don’t cut out the taglines.

PF:

Disclosure is good and the PF wiki should be used more, especially in national tournaments. Evidence quality would increase substantially if so - I find that a lot of PF evidence is miscut. Because of this:

1 - I will vote on disclosure theory. However, it isn’t an automatic W, you still have to win the argument and be persuasive.

2 - I weigh evidence comparison more heavily than other judges.

Speed in PF is fine with me. However, online settings can hamper your clarity if you go too fast.

Ask questions, don’t just make arguments during crossfire.

CX:

T:

Go for it, potential abuse > in round abuse. Case lists are persuasive

DA:

They're good. Specific DAs are better and I will reward good research. Turns case should be contextualized as specifically as possible.

Good risk analysis framing helps my decision. 1% risk of extinction is kinda silly risk analysis but the other team will have to explain why in the debate.

Read a complete shell in the 1nc - that means include uniqueness.

CP:

They're good. Smart advantage CPs and PICs are my favorite. Process/consult/delay CPs I like much less - unless it has a specific enough solvency advocate. I will vote for anything though - just make sure to explain why it solves the aff and is theoretically legitimate. Solvency advocates help a lot in making something theoretically legitimate.

K:

Super generic Ks about the "state" or "fiat" aren't very persuasive to me.

Don't read evidence written by or for debaters.

i've found that a part of the k that really matters is its theory of power/how the world works. if the aff wins that those assumptions don't make sense then they will probably win. same for the negative, winning that the world works in a particular way makes me more likely to vote for you

if you advocate for suicide or death literally being good you'll probably catch an L

K Affs:

K affs are fine but please have a clear position you take on the resolution and a reason why the ballot is key. Shifting out of different negative positions makes me sympathetic to FW arguments.

A lot of judges think that TVAs are necessary every FW debate - I disagree. Having persuasive arguments that frame the ballot in relation to the impacts you are going for is sufficient.

I really value creative forms of engagement with K affs. Pull out CPs and DAs. You should not be afraid to go for some variant of heg good, cap good, or liberalism good in front of me in conjunction with some case defense. If you have a strategy that contests a core thesis of the affirmative, go for it.

K affs will almost always get a permutation - if you think it is unfair why not just go for fw?

Case:

read the aff's evidence.

Internal link defense, even if not supported by evidence, is often more persuasive than the generic impact defense that every team reads. Many aff's have terrible solvency arguments - I wish more negative teams would point this out.

I am a fan of impact turns, provided they aren't genocidal or offensive.

Theory:

In order to make it a reason to reject the team explain why it impacts your ability to debate different flows. Otherwise it is probably just a reason to reject the argument. I don't really have a ton of biases here. Make sure you do things like answer their specific counter interp/standards instead of just reading the same generic block.

have fun!

Updated 01-27-2024

Experience: I was a Public Forum debater at Millard North High School for 3 years (2014-2017) on both the Nebraska and National circuits. I medaled at a few tournaments and went to the TOC my junior year. I debated in NPDA at the University of Arizona for a year. After graduating high school, I also have judged at several Nebraska and national circuit tournaments. I currently work for the state in the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services as a Medicaid Policy program specialist.

PF:

I will need cases and rebuttal cards to be provided to me for accessibility reasons. Please be able to do this in round by emailing me at shayaknathan@gmail.com or dropping it in the file share area in the online debate space.

Paradigm:

Speed: Don't spread. Go at a moderate pace. If you feel as if your speed may be too quick for me, make sure to enunciate clearly. That will make it easier to deal with quicker speech.

Argumentation: I'll follow most lines of argumentation. I'm okay with somewhat blippy arguments. However, if your arguments rely on obscene or offensive grounds, I'll either dock you several speaker points or outright drop you, depending on the severity. Explain everything thoroughly. Make sure I don't have anything to be subjective about by explaining exactly why I have to vote for you.

Intervention: I will try my best not to intervene, but if an argument isn't explained enough, I may be forced to intervene. One thing I will intervene is on framework. The other team can fully drop the framework and I may not weigh the framework if I don't buy it. Thus, you must make sure that your framework is explained in depth and show how it links into your case.

Evidence: I'll most likely call some piece of evidence at the end of the round, so make sure you have it. When I do call evidence and see that it's not correct or something is wrong with it, I won't hold that against you unless the other team calls it in terms of the voters.

Rebuttal: 2nd team needs to rebuild within their rebuttal.

Summary: Don't give me a complete line by line. You need to start funnelling your arguments down and boiling them down to the essentials. Don't give new arguments unless you are responding to a new argument made in a previous speech. You may introduce new evidence but it should be very important for it to be considered.

Final Focus: Same as summary but funnel it down even more. No new arguments or evidence.

Cross-ex: Don't make it into a yelling contest. Try to keep questions concise unless absolutely necessary. If your opponent asks for a question and you're trying to make a multi-part question, let them ask their question first and get back to it later.

Post-rounding: I'm open to questions after the round, pretty much about anything. However, you shouldn't try to convince me about the debate and try to sway my decision. I'll anyways have sent the ballot out before then.

Feel free to ask me questions about anything before round!

I'm a recent OE grad that debated for 3 years in High School (1 at BVN, 2 at Olathe East) mainly in the Open and KDC divisions for policy and Congress, Extemporaneous Debate, DX, PFD, and Info in Forensics.

Policy

TL:DR: I'm just here to watch your round. Be you, be respectful, follow the rules, and demonstrate understanding of your evidence. If you want to speed up, just be clear on your tag lines and analytics.

In terms of preferences, I'm not too picky about debate rounds; you can run whatever you want, as long as you understand the nuances of your agreement. It's your round, and I'm just here to watch. However, I am a firm believer in the idea that clash is crucial in debate round, and will prefer a team that takes the time to properly address the opposition's arguments over one that doesn't.

Recently, the biggest gripe I've had with debaters is the overlooking of synthesizing arguments in favor of reading more meaningless cards. In my eyes, evidence is useless without analysis. I want you to take that evidence and elevate it into an argument; reading cards to me without inputting them into the advocacy through analysis, especially in response to an opponent's arguments, isn't going to help your case. Show me that you understand your case and support your advocacy. I would love to see line by lines and impact calc whenever pertinent. Again, clash is what I prefer in a debate round, and analysis is a key portion of that.

In terms of advocacies in general; there's no argument I won't go for with the right defense (spare any offensive or inappropriate argument). I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of dramatic and overblown framing arguments, but again, with the right defense and in the right context, it's not something I would never vote for. I prefer truth over tech.

I don't prefer topicality and/or theory, unless the argument is truly valid in the situation. I've seen the two often be used as more of a time suck than a true argument, and I'm fine with any other off case position being used in that manner. Please only run these arguments if the opponent's advocacy truly affects your ability to participate in the round.

I won't hesitate to vote against you or dock speaker points/rank if you make a blatant violation of debate rules/etiquette. It goes without saying that you should be respectful and professional with your opponents, but some people often forget that that respect extends into discourse during the round. I expect everyone to be truthful in the round, and that includes bringing up relevant and credible evidence as well as making sure that your partner follows up if you say "my partner will cover that in their speech."

In terms of speed, I can generally handle it as long as you slow down and be clear on your tag lines.

At the end of the day, Debate is just another high school activity. Respect your peers/opponents, act professionally (that includes being aware of when your audio/video are on), and have fun.

If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

PFD

I've got plenty of experience with PFD, so I consider myself tabula rasa. Run what you want, speak how you want, and I'll adjust. I will say though, I feel like PFD is the best place to improve and display an individual's speaking skills, regardless of what cards you've got in front of you. I prioritize clash and prefer that you use cards solely as an accompaniment to your speech. This is not Policy, and I don't want to hear what your author has to say. I want to hear what you have to say and how your cards support what you claim. If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

I am a parent judge with some experience. I will take a lot of notes, but I do not “flow”. Please be respectful of each other during the debate. Please speak slowly enough to be understood. You have done your research and worked hard on your case, but I can only give you credit if I can understand what you are saying. Fast arguments challenge my ability to follow you. I will expect teams to keep their own time. I would recommend quality arguments over quantity.

I hope you have fun. Good luck and have a great round.

Paradigm: Im a basic judge I don't do anything crazy, just tell me why your argument matters and just explain it throughly I flow your case through which means it is important to have clear warrants and links disbursed through your speeches. I want my job to be easy so let me know what I need to vote on and what's important throughout the round, If not done I would have to flow impacts that may not have been a primary focus in the round. The summary and final focus should reflect each other, which means no new information should be presented in the FF (in which case I won't flow through) and arguments should be extended and fleshed out as well. Remember to not bring up dropped or dead arguments in the Final focus its just a waste of time, extend what's important not irrelevant. When extending arguments remember to include the warrants, links, and impacts.

Speed: I am indifferent to speed, I can deal with relatively fast speed but there needs to be clarity within the speech. You need to slow down on tag lines as well as warrants so I understand where you are at, please don't try to run through the speeches there has to be a good amount of understanding of what's being spoken.

Speak Points: I tend to give 28-30s but I won't hesitate to give much lower scores depending on your interactions with your opponents (i.e. racist, rude, sexist etc.)

Just a few more general things:

I would prefer for y'all to keep your own time but if need be I will definitely do so.

I would prefer to have a email chain going at the beginning of the round to generally make it efficient exchanging cards but if uncomfortable with that just have cards ready to be shown

Be respectful in CX. Usually, the first speaker should have the first question

If I haven't addressed anything I should have feel free to ask me before the round starts

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

please put me on the email chain: kateshadman@gmail.com

^^please send docs, don't dump an entire speech into the body of the email

Colleyville Heritage HS (TX) '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit)

University of Oklahoma '24: 4(ish) years policy

pronouns: she/her/hers

tl;dr (pf)

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

tl;dr (cx)

my only cx experience is in college, so I'm not as with it as the other college policy debaters

I don't care what you read, I'll listen to pretty much anything. write my ballot for me, I love judge instruction (especially on the K, implicate it to the round plss). I'm biased for a good policy round but don't get me wrong, I love a good K (most familiar with set col, security, and cap). pls label each piece of paper in the 1NC. regardless of the argument, make sure to extend the link (really hard to vote on anything in the 2AR/NR if it's missing) and implicate your args.

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 (cx: just give me the order of the sheets of paper)

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

pf specific:

- 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)

rebuttal:

- 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

summary:

- if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense is not sticky

- if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, defense is sticky

- please weigh (pls, pls, pls)

final focus:

- 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

crossfire:

- start whenever y'all are ready, don't wait on me

progressive args (pf)

I would rather not but, do whatever you want, but, it's extremely hard to do the work you need to do within the pf time constraints and the bar doesn't lower just because it's pf. if you are going to do something funky, one of the biggest mistakes I see is not implicating the K (or whatever) to the round, make sure you do work on page comparison otherwise, it's really hard to see how the argument is relevant to the round. tell me how to evaluate the arg in the context of the round.

"progressive args don't belong in pf" isn't a response (unless you have a beautifully curated block on this arg), you need some legitimate ink on the flow

again, I would rather not judge progressive rounds in pf, if you want to, you run the risk of losing the ballot a lot easier than if you debated traditionally

evidence:

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)

personal thing about ev- evidence shouldn't be paraphrased when it's introduced into the round, you should be reading from cards, obviously this gets lost in the back half of the round (which is fine)-- if you are going to paraphrase make sure you have the cut cards available and that you are representing them correctly

TL;DR: warrant, collapse, implicate, weigh, extend consistently and don't be offensive/rude. Add me to the email chain: Alina.shivji1@gmail.com

SPEED

Go as fast as you want, and I’ll flow it. If you’re unclear, I’ll say clear twice and then put my pen down. After that, what I can follow is entirely based on your clarity.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS

Feel free to read them. That said, these arguments don’t typically function well in PF due to time constraints. So, I do prefer substance in PF. If you do debate progressively, note that crossfire and flex prep serves as accountability on your advocacy. My default is reasonability. If you want me to approach these args from a different standpoint, tell me.

Feel free to read arguments about any of the -isms. But, make sure in the process, you’re not otherizing. For example, if you are not a Muslim woman who identifies with the LGBT+ community, don’t read arguments about it. Also, if you are reading any arguments concerning sexual harassment/assault/suicide/etc., I expect a trigger warning BEFORE the round.

EXTENSIONS

I have a high threshold for extensions. I expect you to extend the internal links to the argument as well as the impact. In other words, just tell me how you get from point A to C before you extend the impact. If you don’t, I’ll still evaluate the arg but I’ll be less inclined to vote for it.

Defense is sticky until it’s frontlined

FRONTLINING

respond to offensive responses ie turns and terminal defense before you access weighing in the second rebuttal

WEIGHING

Tell me WHY the extended argument matters more than your opponents. If your opponents give me a different mechanism than you to prefer their argument, explain why your mechanism should be evaluated first (metaweighing).

Don’t introduce new weighing in second FF unless your opponents made a critical weighing concession in GCX. The only other exception to that rule is when neither team has weighed up until the second FF.

INTERVENTION

I try not to intervene as much as possible. If there’s no offense in the round and its a policy-oriented topic, I’ll default neg aka the status quo. If it's not a policy-oriented topic, I'll default towards what's most probable.

I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. If the evidence is miscut, I won’t evaluate it and I will penalize your speaks for it.

TECH > TRUTH

If you didn't say it in the round, don't expect me to evaluate it regardless of how "true" the argument may be. That said, use common sense and have good judgement. If you say something incorrect, it won't influence my decision, but I will call you out after the round.

IMPLICATE!

The link to an argument matters but if you don't tell me HOW it fits in the round, I won't know what to do with it. So, tell me what argument serves as turns/terminal defense, why, and what that means for you/your opponents in the round.

My preferences for Public Forum (PF):

a. Please speak clearly.

b. Please take notes on the arguments your opponent is making in the debate to use for rebuttal.

c. Please use each cross fire constructively and don't give speech (answer your opponents question and move on).

d. Please make sure summary and FF sections are clear & warranted.

e. Please do not introduce new items at end of round without giving opponents chance to rebut.

Email is wwatson.debate@gmail.com

I hate paraphrasing and believe it is the cause of bad debate.

World schools peeps- speak with passion and give a clear delivery. Order/signposting is your friend.

No matter what event you are in I expect disclosure once you break a case... if you read disclosure theory I want your case on the wiki even if this is first time breaking

I vote on an offense defense paradigm for the most part- I am a past PF/CX debater from Colleyville Heritage. My first two years I did CX so I will most likely default to stock issues unless someone reads a framework. I enjoy weighing. The easiest way to get my ballot in any event is to pick one argument then weigh it against your opponent's arguments. If you pick one or two arguments to go for in final focus or the rebuttals in policy, I am likely to vote for you, especially if your opponent decides to go for everything.

Recent update- weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh.weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. Literally, start your rebuttal with "regardless of responses, our case outweighs their case because ______"

Also- please please please please please tell me the why. Explain why things happen.

Theory/topicality

I hate theory/topicality being read as a time-suck. I will default to reasonability so if you read T be sure to give me a reason not to. Unfair observations and burdens will most likely get you low speaks, especially if I feel that you are trying to win in a cheap way. Run these at your own risk...

Speaker Points

I will go on a scale between 27-30, with a 28 being average. High Speaks are given to people who keep track of time, speak well, show up early, and are relatively nice. I am cool with sarcasm when appropriate, just don't be rude. Being early to round will get you higher speaks. If I am on a panel with a parent and you have to adapt to them I will understand.

Event Specific

Policy Specific/LD: Flashing doesn't count as prep, I'm down for reasonable theory, and open CX is fine. If you give me a speech doc and then spread through it tell me where to mark the card and which ones to skip. Slow down on taglines and anything else you want me to flow...

PF Specific: I want the second speaking team to try to answer the first rebuttal. New in the 2 gets lower speaks instantly for both partners AND I won't vote on it. If you want high speaks be clear, weigh, and have the FF mirror the summary.

Remember this is a game and y'all want to do this. Act accordingly. BTW I will yell clear!!!

Some background: I did four years of high school debate- both lay debate and nat circuit focusing on mostly LD.

Include me on your email chain please: helenawehr@outlook.com

Speed:

I’m okay with spreading, but please make sure you speak clearly, if I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t flow it. Better slow than sorry.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are fine, just don’t assume I have any comprehensive understanding of the philosophy- especially if it’s more obscure, and make sure you actually know what you’re talking about. Also, make sure your kritik has solid impacts, when it comes down to a wash between policy versus in round impacts, I’m more likely to favor policy.

In general: I mostly liked policy debate, that's definitely what I prefer. I'm fine with theory. Mainly, just be organized and don't be rude.

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

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

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

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

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

I have paradigms written in the order:

1. Public Forum

2. Congress

3. Policy

4. Lincoln Douglas

Public Forum

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

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

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

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

Constructives:

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

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

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

Summary:

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

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

Final Focus:

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

Cross-Examination:

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

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

Framework:

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

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

Evidence Sharing:

Public Forum evidence sharing rules are dumb and unclear.

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

Kritiks:

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

Word Choice:

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

Conduct:

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

Congressional Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglas:

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

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

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

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

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

IE Performances

Performance material should be literature that is compelling and unique. It should be evident that the story fits the performer. Organization of structure and character arc should be evident. Multiple characters are a plus for me but the most important aspect is that the character/s you create are believable. Strong choices but nothing for mere shock value. (Do not prefer cursing, cuss words...but will overlook if proven appropriate for the piece) Time should be used well. As an audience member you should be respectful and appropriate when watching other competitors- just as important. New material is a plus. Motivated blocking. Clean transitions, variation in tone and pacing. Clear articulation.

Speech Events: IX, DX, INFO, OO

Debate

I am a parent judge. Relatively new to judging PF. Be considerate of my experience levels.

I value logic and evidence. Being respectful to opponents matters too.

For email chain, please use: ly2005@gmail.com

Talha Zaheer

Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS

Now attending Texas A&M University.

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Also second rebuttal should frontline.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Speaks: Usually give around 28-30s. I will however tank your speaks if you are (outright rude to me or your opponents, racist, sexist ect.)

General Stuff

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round if needed. Please do not ask me to be on an email chain.

Be respectful in CX. Usually, the first speaker should have the first question

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.