I am a lay judge. My son is in his second year of debate. I have a good familiarity with how to flow, and the M4A topic as well. Please don't speak too fast or else I won't be able to evaluate your arguments properly. Extensions are important to me from rebuttal through the final focus. Also signposting will help me flow your arguments well too. Please avoid any technical debate language or jargon I won't understand and probably ignore it. Stay kind and courteous to each other and make sure to have fun!

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

TOC:

LAY

Don't know what the IMF is

Got vaccinated don't feel well

Looking for chill rounds

//

//

//

Debate a better lens for me to judge the round. Example: util, deontology. Maybe debate role of judge and the role of the ballot.

For (a lot) more info:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=39489

speaks:

I'll often gift speaker points based on how much I think a person contributed to the flow.

update for toc: i haven't done much research on the topic, so please don't use assume I know anything.

harker 20 ->wellesley 24 and did pf in hs

set up an email chain before round and add me: amandakcheung@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

Voting:

- everything extended in final focus must be in summary

- weigh impacts: i don't want to do the work for you cuz it probably won't work out in your favor

- tech > truth

- COLLAPSE!!! (if u don't collapse starting in second summary (though preferably you start first summary), i give you a max of 28 speaks)

- implicate turns

- if you read something progressive, tell me the role it should play in my ballot (if its like Theory or a K explain it really clearly and expect me to evaluate it as a parent judge would)

- if its like disclosure theory and your opponents seem confused/ don't know how to debate it, i think its extremely uneducational for the round and will not vote for it/ drop u

General Preferences:

- i will give u < 25 if you are condescending, rude, or making the round unsafe (misgendering anyone's pronouns, being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist etc)

- speak as fast as you want as long as you're clear (i will stop flowing if you are too unclear). if you think you might be too fast or unclear (zoom quality etc) send a speech doc before your speech or ill just go off of whatever i could understand which will probably hurt you

- second rebuttal should frontline defense from the argument(s) that you are collapsing on and all offense

- second flight should preflow before the round

- ill give u up to a minute to look for evidence (more flexible if there's a lot called) and after that, it comes out of ur prep. also please send CUT CARDS not paraphrases or links to articles

- if you read a TW, please provide an anonymous out (google form etc) for your opponents and anyone in the room. if you don't do this, i will say that i feel uncomfortable regardless of the argument and make you read something else.

most importantly, debate's a safe space; if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, pls lmk!!

feel free to pm me with any questions u have on fb or amandakcheung@gmail.com

4 Year PF debater for College Prep. Freshman at Emory University.

• I'm flow, I can take some speed but would prefer if you went at flay speed.
• Jargon is fine, especially when weighing.
• Please extend, terminalize, warrant, and weigh arguments. If you sign-post while doing so, even better.
• All evidence must be warranted, if it's not and the other team points that out, I won't consider it.
• You can frontline or not frontline in 2nd rebuttal, just extend defense the speech after its frontlined.
• Extending through ink is an easy way to have an argument dropped.
• If you want to run theory or a K you better have a good reason, outside of just winning the debate.
• I will call for evidence if you tell me to in a speech. If you misconstrued evidence, I won't consider it in the round. If you repeatedly lie about your evidence, I may drop you.
• In the end, I'm going to vote off of summary and final focus, rebuttal and constructive just exist to set up these speeches. If something is in your FF and you expect me to vote off it, it has to be in summary.

I am a lay judge and have judged a few debate rounds earlier.

I see debate as a medium to learn real life speaking, logical thinking, and persuasive skills.

Speaking -

I would like the debaters to be crystal clear in their messaging (speeches, rebuttals) and follow a steady, slow and impactful pace.

Don't use any debate jargon.

Be confident and respectful during crossfire, please don't be dominating and over aggressive.

Signpost and explain their arguments before responding to them.

Time yourself, you can go around 20 seconds overtime to complete your argument.

Arguments -

I prefer quality over quantity.

Be thorough, logical, and convincing.

Debaters need to be well prepared and carry supportive evidence.

The arguments debaters are making should be well tied together to present a complete story.

I will leave my personal views aside while judging.

I'm a Blake debate alumna and now an assistant coach.

Worlds Schools debate was my main format, and I competed it for three years at the national level. Speech content: include the principle debate, rebuild / extend arguments from the first speech in the second speeches, and become more globalized for third and fourth speeches. Weigh - and early!! Speaking style: signpost.

As a secondary format, I competed in PF. I am very familiar with the format, and lay on most topics. Read dates, signpost, and I prefer cards / evidence over paraphrasing.

Be nice to each other! At the end of the day, debating is about learning and having fun.

EMAILS FOR EMAIL CHAINS: blakedocs@googlegroups.com and sierra@u.northwestern.edu

I love to see good, clean PF debates. No spreading or speeding, no being rude to your opponents, and being upfront about evidence. I expect all debaters to be able to time themselves. I will flow the entire round and offer feedback on your ballots, not in the round.

*A note to virtual competitors: I may occasionally turn my camera off if there is something that may be distracting happening in my background, this is for your sake and I promise I am still listening and flowing everything going on in the round.

I'm a parent judge for Acton Boxborough.

Please talk slow. It is hard to make a decision if I don't know your arguments.

I listen to crossfire in order to scope the strength of your arguments.

Evaluate me as a lay judge.

Background: I was an LD debater in high school, and I now coach PF.

Pet Peeves: Please don't ask for an "off-time roadmap", either do it or don't. I would prefer you just say what side you are starting on and start the round than a winded explanation.

Time is very precious, it should not take 10 minutes between each speech to transfer evidence in a google doc and get your timer ready - just try to be punctual.

PF Specific: No sticky defense. That means everything you want to be extended or carried through a speech should be explicitly mentioned. Otherwise, I will not extend it.

Paradigm:

I am a tabula rasa judge. This means I will buy any argument as long as you do a good job of convincing me. I love watching how debaters can utilize the resolution to their advantage and create a truly nuanced argument they can call their own. Watching stock cases becomes extremely boring after a while.

Theory: If you can run it well, do it when applicable. You need to tell me why theory is a voting issue, otherwise, there is no reason to run it. I do not mind you reading while speaking, but if your theory is just a pre-cut block of text that you spread and don't explain, I'm probably not going to flow it. I also would prefer you to drop the case if you are going for theory. Having a theory spike can be abusive on the grounds of time skew. It also just muddles the debate.

Kritik: I think the critical debate is very valuable. I will accept aff and neg K's.

Speed: I can handle up to about 250 wpm, but I really don't enjoy it being that fast. My flow gets messy and so unless you plan on giving me a copy of your case, you might want to slow it down a bit. Also, I will only allow speaking as fast as both debaters are comfortable. If your opponent cannot flow your arguments, there is no clash, and that is no fun. Also, I would just prefer a more conversational pace as learning outcomes are much greater when you talk at a speed normal for conversation.

Flowing: PLEASE SIGN POST. When you want me to extend an argument, you need to tell me. Not just that you want it extended, but why. I will only cross apply arguments if you are very organized, and tell me specifically why you are cross applying. It is pretty rare that I do this, so I would just recommend taking the extra step to tell me why your point interacts with multiple parts of their case.

If you have ANY further questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. I also don't mind giving critiques after the round finishes. Good luck and have fun!

Hello Debaters,

My name is Prem Goel. I am a parent judge from Acton-Boxborough.

I take notes during the debate but do not like it when you speak fast. Please speak at a normal pace, similar to what it would be if you were having a conversation with me. Also, I like to vote off of arguments that make more sense to me/I believe could actually happen. For example, on the Medicare for All topic, one team argued that without it, we would go into civil war in America. I do not like these types of arguments at all – please read arguments that make logical sense.

I am a parent judge who has experience judging the Public Forum debate. I prefer clear argumentation that directly relates to the topic and for students to provide voter issues for me in the final rebuttal speeches. I don't like it when debaters dodge questions in cross-ex.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

Hi everyone! Gonna keep this pretty short so you have more time to prep and less just trying to read an essay.

In all rounds be respectful of opponents pronouns and any sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise hurtful language will not be tolerated.

Debate:

I debated all 4 years of high school and participated in nationals three times. I mainly debated PF, though I did also occasionally debate LD. As a general rule be respectful to your competitors. I am perfectly fine with some fire and passion within the debate but be careful it doesn't turn into rudeness. Humor is okay so don't be afraid to crack some respectful and applicable jokes.

(PF):

Feel free to add some speed to your speeches, though if you spew and it gets to the point of just an info dump then I will mark it down in speaks. I don't classify myself as a flow judge due to the fact that I won't drop you just because you dropped one argument, as long as it wasn't a large impact in the round. I won't flow cross though it will play into my decision. Furthermore, make sure you don't only tell me what the impacts and voters are but be sure to weigh and tell me why they matter.

(LD):

As previously mentioned I mainly did PF so I do like clash regarding points. Always relate back to your Value and VC. Mainly in LD what's most important to me is a strong and stable link chain, with extra points if it has evidence to back you up.

Speeches:

I did Oratory for 3 years and also participated in foreign extemp. Mainly with speeches, I'm looking for a strong and confident speech that will intrigue me. Make sure to have your movements down (it doesn't have to be the triangle but I would like some sign that you are alive).

---

If you have any questions feel free to email me at hhennrich02@gmail.com or ask before the round starts. Likewise, feel free to email me after the round with any questions.

PF

PLEASE SIGNPOST - tell me where you are during your speech

Extend the full argument and explain it - don't just tell me to "extend [card name]" or "extend [contention]"

Please weigh - tell me which impact is more important and why

BE NICE - I'll drop you if you're rude/disrespectful to your opponents

let me know if you have questions.

LD

I have gotten very dumb in my old age (22) so please take it easy on me and debate slowly and as clearly as possible. I am very familiar with PF but am new to judging LD.

Lawyer by training. Evidence and valid arguments are paramount. Be forceful but civil. Most importantly, have fun!

For online debate, I am more inclined to give highest speaker points to both parties, since internet issues can result in some speech not coming through clearly. With that leeway being said, there's still some points in the speaker point section that would greatly benefit you chances of winning the round, so if you do read the entire paradigm, don't shy away from it.

During the constructive speeches, make sure you are clear. I cannot stress this enough. If you decide to spread, at the very least, be clear. Most people don't have a problem with being clear but actively annunciate. (doing this in all speeches is preferred)

I really like the 1st crossfire. There's a lot of good things that can come out of 1st crossfire that the other crossfires can't necessarily benefit from. 1st speakers start with 29 speaker points and 1st crossfire can really boost y'all up to 30. Make it productive and polite, yet still, be aggressive.

Rebuttals should have weighing, which is something most people don't do, but would help the round move more smoothly. Attack wise, I always prefer line-by-line, but going big picture won't cost you the round. 2nd speakers start with 28 speaker points. A good rebuttal with clear signposting and line-by-line gets y'all 29 speaker points. Weighing will add another .5 speaker points.

2nd crossfire should have a lot of hardball questions now that your opponent's strategy is more clear. Like the 1st crossfire, make it productive and polite, yet still, be aggressive.

Both summary speeches need to incorporate defense brought up in rebuttal. On top of that, establishing your path to the ballot is key here. Weighing is the best way to gain a speaker point if you didn't get it in the 1st crossfire. If you don't say it in summary, your partner can't say it in the final focus. That's pretty normal for most rounds, but I will actively listen for new arguments and actively not write them down.

Grand crossfire is a time to have fun. You can expand on summary arguments, so "new arguments" are sort of allowed. Establishing dominance is key in this crossfire because if you as the individual are dominant, you can make up for the speaker point you didn't get in the other speeches. That being said, being dominant doesn't mean being mean. There is a perfect middle ground that most people can get to. If you are being mean, you won't lose speaker points, but if you actively insult your opponents, expect you and your partner to lose speaker points.

Final Focus is my favorite speech. First, voters. If you don't have voters from the summary, you can't win. Making new arguments is bad. My summary speech paradigm explains this pretty well. This is where 2nd speakers can get their final speaker point for straight 30s. The way you do that is pretty easy: give me your voters and tell me why I should value your voters over your opponents. The 1st final focus will have a harder time on this, but it's not impossible especially considering that you heard your opponent's summary.

For reference, I did Public Forum for 4 years with Lincoln Douglas and a couple of speech activities sprinkled in around.

Something that does bother me for some reason is when an entire speech's time isn't filled up. Do try to fill it up as much as possible. If you don't, I'm hoping you only have at most 30 seconds left of the speech. If your speech is shorter than that, I am inclined to remove .5 speaker points. However, comma, if there really isn't anything left to talk about in your speech and there is more than 30 seconds left in your speech, DO NOT RAMBLE. I sometimes rambled on at the end of my speeches because I had nothing so say, and it didn't add to my argument. State the facts and be done with it.

Empirics is something that each team should have. Straight empirics are more important than philosophical arguments to me. If you do run theory, don't call it a theory. It's not terribly hard to adapt theory to PF, but if your opponents call you out for theory, I may just drop the whole theory from the debate. You be the judge of when it'll be appropriate. If you do use theory, I will tell you at the end of the round if I valued it or dropped it. If I dropped it, feel free to attempt to convince me that I should've valued it. If you slip up and get angry and yell at me, I'll call the cops. That's a joke. I won't get offended, I know what it's like to lose an argument that I spent a lot of time developing both outside and during the round. Please be nice and don't waste time.

Something I tend to hear in PF now is a colorful analogy. I really like analogies because it makes it more family friendly for lay judges and tired judges. What I like more than analogies are references. If you make a bad reference to pop culture, you lose .5 speaker points. So don't spend too much time on analogies. A good reference will follow nonnormative meme culture (if you don't know what that is, I would shy away from pop culture reference and stick to vanilla analogies).

If you have any specific questions, ask me. Most judges will be a little peeved if you just ask "What are your paradigms?" instead of specific questions, but I won't get mad. Ask.

If you have scrolled this far, welcome to the LD Paradigms.

I absolutely need clear roadmaps for each speech. It will help me be able to catch all the important details as well as your opponent in order to have a productive exchange of arguments.

I do not mind progressive debate. Progressive debate is a staple of LD and can be used very effectively. However, I will not value progressive aspects of the debate over physical evidence directly pertaining to the Resolution. Feel free to ask specific questions about certain strategies before the round starts in order to make sure that what you are utilizing isn't too farfetched and way out of left field.

SPEECHES

The 1AC is simple. Feel free to spread, do what you need to do to get everything out on the table.

The 1NC is a little less simple. Anything not addressed by the Negating side is assumed to be conceded for the Affirmative side. This will make is easier for the round as a whole, but harder for the Negating side for obvious reason. Even if it is just mentioned briefly I will still let it fly as you addressing it and you can clarify further in CX or the NR.

CX as a whole should be respectful, but also definitely demanding. whichever side is questioning has a lot of power to drive the narrative, so use the full force of the examination. In PF, CX can get a little disrespectful and it can hurt speaker points, which is why I am most likely not going to deduct any speaker points based on CX performance. I will only add speaker points.

1AR's focus should be a rebuttal of course, but there also needs to be plenty of weighing. This will make it easier for me to find the path to the ballot for the Affirmative. Any weighing not done here cannot be brought over to the 2AR.

The NR has the hardest job. Not only do you have to rebut all terminal attacks, but you also have to weigh and give me the Negating side's path to the ballot. New arguments in the NR won't be written down by me, but like I said in the 1NC, if you at least mention your attack and give some brief understanding of where you're going, you can further extrapolate on that idea in this speech.

2AR should almost be a mirror of the 1AR in my opinion. No new arguments, only crowd control is allowed. If something truly diabolical is said in the NR, go ahead and address it, but make sure it has direct relevance to your speech content.

SPEAKER POINTS

It's pretty easy to get 30 speaker points. I'm fairly nice about it. The way I give speaker points is the Affirmative side starts with 27 speaker points and the Negating side starts with 28. I will add speaker points with each speech you give. As long as you are clear when you spread you will probably get the point.

But let's assume you choke up in your 1AC and either don't finish your case reading or you skipped too far down and missed an important link. It's alright because if you perform well under the pressure of your opponent's questioning in your CX, I will give you .5 of a speaker point back to you. In order to get the other half of the speaker point, you must ask important and relevant questions in your CX of the Negating side, making sure you keep your opponent in check while still being somewhat respectful (but go ahead and be rude it's more fun that way). And of course, this works for the Negating side as well, these terms are not exclusive for the Affirmative side. For obvious reasons, I can't give more than 30 speaker points (I don't think).

Like my PF paradigm, ask any and all questions you have before the round starts. If you have any questions during the round you would like to ask me, feel free to do so. I can understand the stress of debating and now having technology as the middle man will jumble up your mental processes. It will disrupt the immersion and flow of the round, but if it's a necessary question then it's a necessary evil. Just make sure it doesn't happen more than once or twice.

If there are any questions or concerns after the round regarding either my paradigm or RFD, feel free to email me at jhoang19@mail.strakejesuit.org I might not get to it immediately, but if you make the subject line what round and flight you were for what tournament, I will be more likely to answer promptly

I am a Lay Judge. Please speak slowly and clearly during the round. My speaker point range is from 27.5-30. Be respectful in the round and have fun.

My preferences are pretty standard. I like taking notes on the arguments, evidence, impacts etc while you are speaking. I don't like new ideas introduced later in the debate. Weigh as much as possible to differentiate your narrative from your opponents, starting from the summary.

I'll weigh everything at the end of all the rounds. Public forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating. Be respectful during crossfire, no time wasting tactics. I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, rebuttal, arguments, and impacts. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

I did PF for Brophy for 4 years.

Feel free to let me know if there’s anything i can do to make the round more comfortable and safe. (egk32@georgetown.edu or FB message me)

Quick notes:

1. If you are the second speaking team and want to extend an argument, you have to frontline all responses on that argument in second rebuttal + if you don’t respond to turns on any argument, they are conceded.

2. Make sure every arg you're reading has warrants AND extend them pls

Weighing: Just make sure its comparative between args + it starts early (second rebuttal, first summary)

Sidenote: Most times, grandcross is really useless so if both teams agree to skip it for like a minute of prep instead, I'm cool with that

I am a lay judge with only around 10 debates under my belt.

I am looking for how clearly/logically you present your case with special emphasis on how well you can counter your opponent's points.

All the best.

i am a parent judge. please add me to the email chain and before speeches, email both your case and rebuttal documents so that I can better read/follow along and understand everything in online debate: teresahu08@gmail.com.

please speak clearly, and be respectful during crossfire.

good luck!

I've been judging for a few years.

I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources.

Make eye contact with me and convince me with a carefully made argument. Please explain your arguments, and make it clear how your argument is relevant, or the logic of it.

Hello!

I am a lay judge and would just like to see a CLEAR and CLEAN debate.

CLEAR:

- Don't speak fast and don't be too aggressive

- Explain your arguments well and don't expect me to know everything you know about the topic

- Have an order to your speeches, don't jump back and forth between different parts of the debate and expect me to easily follow along

- Don't use technical debate terms. Keep everything simple.

CLEAN:

- Be respectful to your opponents

- Don't bring up new arguments late in the round

- Make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments instead of just listing off random ideas

At the end of the day, debate is an educational activity so have fun and be respectful.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Competition Experience:

Competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.

Flay Judge

Public Forum

I have not done any prep on the Sept/Oct topic so anything that you read will be new to me.

I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

I do not flow crossfire. Any concessions made during cross need to be brought up in the next speech.

First summary needs to extend defense. Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.

I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.

Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.

I am an experienced lay judge. I prefer slower speaking so I can understand what is going on. Please adapt to me.

Make sure you have evidence in your speeches clearly labeled. Cut your cards, I will drop your speaks if you don't.

Add me to the email chain when sharing evidence, I would prefer a document like a google doc though where you share your evidence. My email is tlevitsky05@gmail.com

Speech docs are appreciated as well.

Please do not ask me questions after the round, I will put comments in your RFD.

Paradigm written by debater^

Some additional notes:

-If you are yelling at me in the zoom, I most likely have no idea what is going on. Yelling over each other in cross just makes this worse.

-Build a narrative. The best way to convince any lay judge is to have a convincing story. If you go line by line there is literally no way my parent can vote for you because she doesn't understand the story you're trying to explain. Extend your case, extend a story, and the round will be a) much more pleseant and b) easier to vote for you.

-I might take some notes, but I don't flow. Taglines are important. Those are easiest to remember, so try to signpost your speech and have taglines on arguments so I can follow along.

-No jargon

-Have fun!

Bio

Hi, I competed in PF for Hamilton High and am currently a college senior.

I am old and uninvolved with debate, so I probably can't flow speed well anymore. I would suggest you treat me like a flay judge.

**Note for Cal Invitational: I am only judging Sunday and skipped Saturday. Hence, I am NOT familiar with the topic and what is considered stock/trendy.

TLDR: quality>quantity, extend your link story, weigh. Everything here is pretty standard.

1. Collapsing is absolutely necessary; do not try to extend everything in case and win every argument. Going for 1 or 2 pieces of offense will result in a much cleaner round.

2. I expect you to *EXTEND YOUR LINK CHAIN* in both summary and final focus. Walk me through your warrants and impacts again. Don't just frontline and entirely skip over your link story (ghost extensions).

4. Defense does not need to be extended into the first summary, unless 2nd rebuttal chooses to respond to defense from first rebuttal (I won't strictly force frontlining in 2nd rebuttal). However, it might be good to extend important terminal defense into the first summary for the sake of emphasis (up to you).

5. **Weigh, weigh, weigh**. Don't forget to also weigh turns (too many teams don't do this). Keep your weighing comparative -- saying "poverty is the most important impact" is not real argument comparison. My decisions very often come down to whichever team did the better job weighing, especially when the link debate becomes messy. If you are speaking 2nd, don't wait until FF to weigh (I will default to this if no other weighing is done).

6. If you want to read an actual warranted framework, that needs to come no later than 1st rebuttal. This means if you are speaking 2nd, you will need to introduce any framework starting in case (not 2nd rebuttal).

7. I have minimal experience with progressive argumentation, so steer away from it. I heavily frown upon what I perceive to be tricks or gimmicks.

Miscellaneous

Feel free to post-round/ask questions until you are satisfied. Once upon a time, I was once a tryhard, sweaty, angry PF debater myself, so I understand the pain of dropping rounds. Please time yourselves.

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.

Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.

Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

I'm a tab judge, I'm never going to intervene or complete arguments for the debaters in front of me. What's made important in the round is what I'll make important on my ballot. I'm fine with speed, as long as the debaters articulate. I understand K and rhetorical arguments, and am willing to vote for whatever makes the most logical sense in the round, regardless of morals (i.e., I'll vote for an argument that kills more people if the debater can tell me why that makes the most sense).

I know debate theory and will always point out an error in link chain, though I won't vote there unless opponent also points it out.

I like voters, clash points, and world comparison.

Truth > tech.

I like stock cases argued and explained well. Cross ex totally matters, in fact I have voted on convincing, strategic CX performances in many a bid round. Summaries should weigh. Call it "old tymey" PF.

If you are constantly thinking throughout the round (not just blindly reading cards) I will probably vote for you. Strike me if you have a super long link chain, do not address the topic, or talk super fast. Humor is great.

hi! I did PF in high school. Here's some things about my judging.

1. Do whatever you want. I suggest you frontline in second rebuttal, but I don't really care. Just don't be racist, sexist, or otherwise problematic.

2. I want to make the debate as accessible and fun as possible. If there's anything you want to try or that you've seen in other rounds or in other people's paradigms that seems fun, we can try it as long as your opponents are okay with it.

3. My knowledge of K lit is very limited. I'm down to judge a K round but act like I don't know anything.

4. Debate is meant to be a communication activity. While I will judge any style of debating, I will give speaker points based on your communication skills. I will only vote for an argument if it’s warrant is clearly extended. It’s your job to make sure I catch everything you want me to flow throughout the round.

5. If you think I made a bad decision or just have questions, please feel free to ask me after the round (just don't be too aggressive). I'd rather have a discussion than have you walking away feeling unsatisfied.

Also please weigh. Please. Feel free to ask me any other questions!

Email: mukilpari22@g.ucla.edu

- Tech over truth. Debate is a game.

- Evidence changes need to be efficient.

- Framing is key.

- Theory is probably my favorite argument (I will vote on well warranted RVIs).

- Signpost.

- I default util.

- Don't run skep.

- I want speech docs if you are spreading. Articulate analytics clearly.

- If there are multiple layers of debate, I necessitate weighing analysis as to which comes first and why.

- Do not just state "risk of offense so we win." Do the comparative analysis for me.

Pf Specific:

- Please be ethical with you evidence.

- If I don't catch something, that is on you.

- Clarify all acronyms.

- You do not need to extend terminal defense.

- Second rebuttal should cover first rebuttal b/c why not. You will have an enormous advantage in doing this and it will also make the round way easier (I won't hold it against you if you don't though).

- I prefer legitimately substantive debates in pf. My threshold for squirrely theory and ks in pf specifically is extremely low.

- I want at the bare minimum author's last names and the year. I may call for further qualification if there is a card to card comparison.

- Paraphrasing theory is welcome but it needs to be properly run (shell format).

- First summary does not need to extend defense on args that second rebuttal did not respond to. However, if the second rebuttal did respond to it, first summary needs to address it.

- Second speaking summary should extend all defense and offense.

- All of your offense that you go for in ff needs to be in summary.

- Weigh and collapse. Don't go for everything. Collapse on your most offensive args/turns and tell me why you win and your opponent does not (i.e. voters).

Paths to My Ballot:

- If there is no weighing at the end of the round, I will be forced to do the weighing analysis myself and then I might make a decision that you don't agree with. JUST do the weighing analysis--give me offensive reasons as to why you are clearly winning and why your opponent is evidently losing.

- Cleanly extended offense is key to winning.

- I reserve the right to use my judgment as I see fit.

LD Specific:

-I don't understand tricks/framework NCs anymore (I'm too old) so don't run them.

Case

- Obviously I won't have the same topic knowledge so clarify acronyms.

- Warrants are ultra-important. I need a warrant for any claim.

Plans/CPS/DAs

- These are my favorite types of debates. Offense/defense analysis is really important along with a lot of weighing. Plan/CP text should be explicitly stated.

Kritiks

-Any intelligible kritik with strong links to the plan, legit impacts, and a good alt is a viable strat in my book. Just explain the thesis of the k in like 1-2 sentences before jumping into the k. Make sure to emphasize how the aff links and I should be good.

- Unfortunately, if I don't understand the k and you make no attempt imo to clarify, I won't vote for you.

Kritikal Affirmitives

- You will win my ballot if you can explain to me how your advocacy operates and how I should evaluate it.

Public Form was originally designed with the framework that any reasonably educated lay person could follow an argument, weigh the evidence, and judge which side had greater merit. This is the precise premise from which I, as a former high school history teacher, will listen to your round and judge.

I will base my decision on the following 3 criteria:

1) Speech: Speaking slowly and clearly is critical. If you speak much too rapidly or in monotone, it’s hard to understand what you are saying, so it will not matter in the end how good your arguments are. Strive to enunciate, be articulate, and modulate your voice. Keep me engaged and listening.

2) Evidence: Your arguments should be easy to follow, logical, and practical. You should organize your evidence so that similar arguments are grouped together. It helps if you enumerate the arguments.

3) Decorum and Civility: Show respect to your opponent. Disagreements should never be disrespectful nor personal. Maintain a courteous, calm, and professional attitude and demeanor.

Remember that you are addressing and making a pitch to an informed and engaged citizen, not a professional speech and debate judge.

Hello! If you need to contact me my phone number is (435)640-0086 and my email is petersc@lawrence.edu

Background:

I've done four years of high school LD debate as well as multiple speaking events.

A conglomeration of thoughts/ how to win my ballot:

Sometimes I turn my camera off, I promise I'm paying attention.

Cut cards please.

Speed shouldn't be a problem unless it is used as a weapon of confusion. If you can go slower and still read your case please do.

Please do weighing in a clear clear way it will help you win.

Link and Evidence comparison is important. Show why your link is stronger than your opponents' clearly.

I vote for the well-reasoned, well-argued and well-defended argument over the sad drawing out of dropped arguments.

I don't love hearing Ks. I have 0 background in them and don't like to feel scared. However, if you can read a K in a clear and concise enough way for PF I will be fine.

Reach out with additional questions!

Card sharing-

Add me onto the email chain: Phanhenri@yahoo.com

My background-

I debated 2 years of PF debate in highschool (2nd speaker). >98% of all cases were traditional in delivery, arguments and scope.

I debated 1 year of Policy in College. My university was very progressive in all debate rounds (Anti-black, Model minority, Chicana Fem, Fem Rage, etc).

I coached PF/LD debater for 2 years, so I am a flexible judge when it comes to skill levels and speech styles.

I come into each round as a blank slate and let the rounds unfold whichever way the debaters take it.

How to win my ballot-

The flow should be as clean and clear as possible. Please signpost/roadmap what will be happening in the round so I can easily and clearly flow all arguments made. I use my flow to keep track of all the arguments and major points in the round, so keeping a clean flow makes it easier for me to not drop anything you said or miss where you want me to cross apply it.

This being PF, I will ultimately vote on the team that proves their impacts should* supersede the other team's impacts. HOWEVER, I will also vote on presumption if the team creates a solid case on why changing the sqo is worse or doesn't actually reach the benefits.

In short, I judge based upon the arguments made in round and which team is better capable of winning the majority of the main arguments/contentions. I am open to listen to any type of argument (traditional or progressive), I am personally looking at which team best proves their position on the topic.

Speaker points-

As far as I am concerned no one deserves <25 speaker points as long as you are not rude, or demeaning to any other debaters.

The vast majority of my rankings are from 30-27.

Other information-

I don't flow CX, bring up any important information from CX in your next speech.

I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and recently graduated from Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is ninapotischman@gmail.com—put me on the email chain! If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

TLDR; please weigh (a lot), one good argument > four blippy arguments, be nice to your opponent!

*FOR PF*

Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will inform how I perceive rounds. I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.

TLDR; I have a high threshold for warrants and extensions. I'll vote on policy style extinction scenarios if done well, but they're often executed poorly—be sure you can tell a clear story with warrants in later speeches.

General:

• Send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
• The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing—i.e., don't just say that nuclear war is worse than poverty—you should also have a number of arguments comparing your/your opponent's internal links. Extend warrants into final focus.
• People in PF have started to read LD/policy type arguments with long link chains. Often, these arguments don't have proper uniqueness/link/impact. If you can't tell a clear story establishing a brink for impacts that would require a brink, it will be hard to get me to vote on these arguments against something with a clearer narrative. I also tend to find these arguments unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated.
• I have a lot of trouble with signposting in PF. Be extra clear about where you are on the flow at all times. I tend to miss card names, so don't use those to signpost. If you're spreading, slow down more.
• Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
• I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
• I'm relatively technical, but I am less inclined to vote for you're not persuasive
• I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.

Evidence exchange takes much too long. If the round takes over an 1 hr 10 min due to evidence exchange, speaks are capped at a 27.5. If one team sends their evidence before every speech, this only applies to the other team. If one team seems to excessively ask for evidence, this rule will only affect the speaks of the other team.

Theory/ks:

• I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not and I'll probably miss things—especially if you don't send speech docs/make 1-2 line arguments. Use spreading as an opportunity to make more in-depth arguments, rather than spewing blips
• I will not intervene unless I believe you are engaging in a practice that excludes your opponent—for example, reading theory against novices/a team that clearly doesn't know what theory is, particularly if the arguments are frivolous. Use your judgment & debate with the best intentions.
• I will vote on kritiks that are executed correctly, but please make an effort to ensure your opponent understands your positions and err towards over-explanation. Kritiks should be disclosed
• If both teams seem to want to have a theory/k/etc. debate, then I will evaluate this argument as if it is an LD round. If you miss necessary argument components, that's on you—e.g., I won't pretend you read a theory voter if you did not
• Good, true arguments > highly technical bad arguments
• If you read disclosure theory and don't disclose your disclosure theory shell, you should lose, though your opponent must point this out.

Evidence ethics:

• I have a low threshold for ev ethics violations. If you think your opponent did something bad, they probably did. Feel free to stop the round, or make a brief argument explaining the violation, and I'll vote on it if I think the violation is clear. You can read a full theory shell if you want to, but it's not necessary
• Things that are bad: clipping, miscutting, misattributing evidence, broken links, changing the meaning of the cards with brackets, lying, not reading things that change the meaning of the evidence, etc.

*FOR LD*

General

I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although I debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. My biggest preference is just for intelligent well-thought out arguments, whether that's a kritik, a plan aff or a framework. That said, here are my preferences:

• Please please please do not be late :(
• Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC . So if you're extemping things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
• The biggest reason people lose in front of me is because they do not explicitly weigh. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, PLEASE, OR ELSE I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE. And then we will all be sad. If you do not weigh in your speech, and then you lose, that is on you.
• Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
• I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
• I reserve the right to not vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
• I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
• I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
• I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
• I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
• It's really hard to flow spreading on Zoom. I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks

Theory

• If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
• I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded. Just know your speaks will suffer.
• Slow down for interps/counterinterps
• If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it

Framework

• I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
• Please weigh

Ks

• I think people think I don't like Ks?? This is not true. Kritiks, run well, are one of my favorite kinds of arguments. I'm pretty familiar with most K lit, with the exception of POMO stuff, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always good.
• My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh, and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication. (I.e. you have to say, this takes out theory, and why).

Speaks

Things that will get you high speaks

• Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
• Good strategies
• Using CX effectively
• High argument quality
• Good overviews/crystallization
• Good case debate. Please don't drop the aff!!!!

Things that will get you low speaks:

• not disclosing
• tricks
• being shifty
• lots of spikes/blippy arguments
• super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
• clearly not understanding your own positions
• being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
• academic dishonesty

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

I debated for three years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.

General Stuff:

• I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.

• I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.

• I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.

• I also believe that weighing comes in tiers: you need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.

• I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.

Things I Do Not Like:

• I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

I am a Lay Judge who is new to judging. Expecting teams to speak clearly and slowly.

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

• TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

  LD

  Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

  Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

  Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

  Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

  Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

  PF

  • I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)

  • I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well

  • The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team

  • theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
  • Provide impact calc throughout the round
  • I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
  • CLASH IS KEY

  • Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.

  • Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.

  • 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!

  • extending over ink makes me very sad :(

• Miscellaneous:

  • Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points

  • Please please please weigh your arguments.

  • Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.

  • please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time

  • Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

Trey Roark

She/Her/They/Them

If you have any questions about the round or anything in general, don't hesitate to email me at trey.roark3@gmail.com (Also add me to the email chain)

Just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean it's just my face

TL;DR:

If I'm judging you in another event that isn't policy, pop off on whatever you want, I'm pretty fluid when it comes to argumentation.

Go off on whatever

Love speed especially when clear

Also, cross-ex is something I pay attention to a lot.

Truth Over Tech (Tech is obviously amazing, but don’t go reading racism/homophobia good args or something like that because that ain't the truth, and arguments that are just not true are not persuasive)

Top Level:

I think that debate is based on the contextualization of the round. Whatever comes out of your mouth is what I evaluate (which on paper sounds really weird but you get the point).

Don't be rude, but that doesn't mean you can't be bold, if fact I encourage it, if you know a claim is ridiculous call it out, clown on them, and CX is a perfect place to do this.

IMO CX is CX because of CX so I evaluate Cross-Ex ALWAYS. It's my favorite part, so y'all better know whatchu talking about because CX can be pretty damning for a lot of teams

Arguments:

KvK: I'm all for them, especially if it's done well. I love talking about specific theories and reading various literature on them. I do a lot of QT and Sex Worker research so if you're planning on running with that I'd have a pretty good background on it before reading it in front of me. Anything else is totally fine, but I evaluate this in terms of a method v. method, not in terms of which method I think is better but which is better framed, linked, and described materially throughout the round. So tech helps you a lot here.

Plans: Sure! I read soft left affs in high school, so I have a soft spot for em........ If you're not reading one, topic analysis is obviously almost necessary, but even then if it says "screw the res" that's cool too, C/I can help you with this as well. I read k affs, but I love clash debates.

Framework: I read both K affs and Policy affs, so I've voted on FW before. I will say there better be a lot of impact framing on this, especially in the context of the round, cause I believe that the aff in itself is scholarship so that's already a plus for in-round analysis.

TvPlans: You can go for T in the 2NR, but there needs to be quite a bit of articulation, mostly just because I don't really understand it and I didn't do much of it in high school. I've never gone for T before, so if that gives you any information. Affs that are obviously untopical sway my vote in this case. Grammar T's are pretty strong tho to ;)

DAs: I like these, but at some point, I think they not only get repetitive but also boring. In this case, quality over quantity, because if not, it's a waste, so if you're running it into the block, there needs to be a lot of contexts and in-round descriptions.

CPs: I like these, condo is definitely good in this case. I think theory on CPs can be strategic, I also like the creativity of CPs, but I think Fiat in all cases needs to be explained to me in the context of what we fiating and why we should be able to. I don't just buy a "we get fiat" argument, I need to know why you do.

Theory: Perm debate is good, but it isn't just about specific theories and why you deserve perms or not, it's also what can the perm do for each side, or why it's unfair for the affirmative to have one, I love out of the box answers to perms and play on words. Other theories are fine but there needs to be more than a 1 line description and a fairness impact though.

KvPlan (K's in general): I like these kinds of debates, especially if there's a good link not just to the topic/overarching usfg, but specifically the plan itself and why voting aff causes specific disadvantages. Tell me why the perm can't work, and why the K and K alone is specific to solving the plan. I also live for how plan debaters respond to this, if done well can make for really good debates.

Also, I love putting DA names on links and examples, creative naming goes a long way for me.

Things I hate

- Blippy Disclosure (Unless breaking new or specific reason)

- Stealing Prep

- Clipping

- Homophobia/Racism/Sexism/Transphobia, etc.

Debate is supposed to be fun and an awesome activity where we all get to hear each other's opinions, voices, and scholarship; don't ruin that. It makes debate inherently harmful and unfun, and I don't think engaging in such an intellectual activity should be either of those things.

Email: aas363@cornell.edu

do whatever you want

SAFETY NOTE:

Safety comes first. If the round becomes unsafe for you or your partner and you are not comfortable voicing your concerns in the round, please email or FB message me immediately. I want all debaters to know that I am an adult you can trust in this space. I will do as much as I can to protect you and keep this activity safe for you.

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.

I competed in public forum debate for 4 years at Poly Prep (2014-2018), coached Lake Mary Prep HM (2018-2019), and currently coach Poly Prep (2019-2021).

Add me to the email chain: hschloss2@gmail.com

Warrant your turns

Do comparative weighing

Tell me why your evidence is better

Bad evidence bad speaks

Hi, y'all can call me Abi. She/Her pronouns, please!

If an email chain is necessary please add me: agshowalter@gmail.com

Background:

I did Public Forum for four years and I also dabble in Policy debate.

PF:

- Loudest debater does not always win, please mind your volume

- Spreading is cool as long as you clearly state each contention or point

- Kinda Policy centric

- Use evidence to support any arguments you make

- EXPLAIN your REASONING, don't just say "they dropped it so we deserve to win"

General:

- Be respectful and professional with fellow debaters

- Seriously, there is no need to call me judge or ma'am, I am not that old

- Ask questions

- Do your best

- Have fun and don't waste anyone's time

I will judge based on argumentation, use of evidence, and logic. I am not a big fan of spreading either, so please talk clearly.

Also, it would be great if you could send a speech document after the constructive speech as my Wifi is not very good and I would not want you to lose because of that.

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

MY DEBATE EXPERIENCE

I am the parent of a debater. I’ve never judged a debate before. I am a university political science professor, and I’ve led my students to Model United Nations events, a related pursuit.

WHAT I’M LOOKING FOR

I’m looking for effective arguments supported by relevant evidence. Please signpost your main points.

Please speak at a conversational pace, so that your good arguments can be heard and processed by the audience.

Please counter the arguments of your opponents in a civil manner, showing respect for your opponent.

You may feel free to ask questions before or after a round.

THIS IS WHO I BELIEVE WINS

The winner will be the team which most effectively argues the impacts of its case, supporting with proper evidence and reasoning.

The winner will rebut the argument/s of the other side with an even temperament.

The winner will argue clearly as to why his/her/their side wins in final focus.

THIS IS WHAT I WILL ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE THE DEBATERS

I will attempt to judge the competition without bias toward any side.

I will try to demonstrate in everything I do that I am happy to be at the debate.

I will endeavor to provide debaters with constructive feedback on their performance.

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

University of Nevada, Las Vegas | Policy Debater

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email Chain: wongk33@unlv.nevada.edu

Flowing: Please, signpost and provide a roadmap for every speech following the 1AC. If you're going to spread, it would work to your advantage to slowdown on tags, analytics, and theory arguments. I am not opposed to arguments that challenge how I should flow the round.

Prep: I will not count emails as prep, unless you're being unreasonable. However, consideration may be made in the event of unforeseen technical difficulties, i.e. poor wifi connection. You may potentially receive higher speaker-points if you're ready to give your order right away.

Cross-Examination: Utilize this time by asking relevant questions. Clarify what your opponents are advocating for, and setup potential arguments. CX is binding. Be direct, and assertive with your inquiries. I love a little sass—it keeps the rounds fun, and interesting. However, do not be absurdly rude.

Clarity: Debate is a communicative activity, therefore it is vital that you speak in an intelligible fashion. I may say "clear" if your speech is incomprehensible.

Affirmative: Articulate your arguments, and explain your position. This is particularly important during rebuttal speeches. "Extend our, Roberts '16 evidence," will not suffice—extend the warrants. Provide a narrative contextualizing why you should receive the ballot. Policy debate can get messy, therefore extending your advocacy statement may work to your advantage.

Negative: Strategically split-the-block. I do not want to hear the same arguments made by the 2NC in the 1NR. Explain, and extend the warrants from your evidence throughout the debate.

Kritik: I am open to critical arguments, granted they are well-explained, and relevant to the topic. Do not depend on a tagline, and/or buzzword to carry your argument. Additionally, do no operate under the assumptions that I was well-read on the literature of your kritik prior to the round. Introduce, elaborate, and articulate your position, if you wish to receive higher speaker-points. Specifically identify the link(s), make offensive comparisons, impact claims, and frame the debate. It's difficult to vote negative if an alt is either vague, not explained, and/or not extended.

Other:

01) Debate is a game, and flowing is a huge part of it.

02) Speak Up • Speak Clearly • Speak Confidently

03) Standing during all of your speeches, and cross-examination may work to your benefit.

04) Do not depend too heavily on implicit truths written within the text of your evidence. Arguments should be spoken, articulated, and extended throughout the round.

05) Fill your speech times. Each position has a story—tell it.

06) Insufficient explanations for complex arguments may cost you the round.

07) Competitors should be courteous to one another. It is possible to be persuasive without being disrespectful. I will not tolerate recklessly offensive and/or inappropriately rude behavior.

08) Only one person should be speaking per speech, unless it is a performative necessity or an accessibility issue. It is very difficult to flow more than one voice at a time.

09) I will attempt to be neutral and evaluate arguments independent of my own biases. Read arguments that you are comfortable with, but pretend that I know nothing about them beforehand.

10) Debate is a game, so have fun with it!

Public Forum: Please do not excessively nod your head at me while your partner is speaking. I find this particular practice to be extremely distracting, and non-beneficial to your position whatsoever. However, do not feel discouraged from look up to gauge my thoughts—just be aware of the aforementioned note.

RFD: Questions are welcome after rounds.

Normal talking speed helps me understand you better.

Hello! I'm currently a junior at UCSD. I've debated PF for 4 years and LD for 2 years back in high school(Canyon Crest/Carmel Valley - graduated in 2018), mostly at lay tournaments but I do have circuit PF experience(I guess I would describe myself as the average "flay" judge).

I don't like to impose too many guidelines on how rounds should go, but here are some things to keep in mind:

Speed is fine, but if you do choose to spread, I need the speech docs.

I'm pretty flexible with any argument that you run(except for theory/Ks/tricks and stuff like that); just make sure you explain it clearly with weighing and signposting :)

Please don't be rude in crossfire/cross-ex.

Please no new information in final focus :)

Don't be afraid to ask me questions before/after the round! And most importantly, have fun!!!

This is my first year of judging public forum debate. I don't mind fast speeches; just be clear.

Please be respectful at all times,

Thank you.