hey! I'm Namitha (Nuh-mee-thuh) lol sorry I don't know how to spell phonetically. I won't be offended if you pronounce my name wrong, but anyway, I use she/her pronouns.

I am writing this paradigm pretty late at night between organic chemistry assignments, so I probably am not gonna address everything. Please ask as many clarifying questions as you want at the beginning of the round.

I debated all 4 years of high school in LD and PF at the state and national level at Brookfield East High School. Feel free to ask me more about my experience if you wanna ~adapt~, but I'm open to hearing any arguments especially if you're passionate about it!! I have experience with traditional and progressive argumentation, but it's totally chill to ask me if I'm aware of certain types of arguments. I'll be honest with my knowledge and comfort with the type of argument.

In terms of speed, I could handle most speeds when I debated, and I probably could still do it. However, I am a couple years out, so it would be super dope if you added me to the email chain if you plan to speak extremely fast. I now realize though that I am judging PF for this tournament, so I don't anticipate speed being an issue for me; this is more for policy/LD spreading.

Oooh for PF, I will emphasize that I have significant LD experience as well as PF experience. So I will expect framing and weighing of impacts. When I say this, I don't mean that I expect PFers to read moral philosophy to me. But I do need to be told which types of impacts to value and why. In general, here are other things I like: organization, roadmaps (<10 seconds), signposting, robust extensions, robust explanation of evidence, voters, and no new arguments in final focus. If any of this jargon doesn't make sense, please ask me, and I'll clarify!!

At the end of the day, just be respectful and kind to your opponent. Don't use offensive language. I will be sad if you spread out your opponent who clearly wasn't used to spreading. Or, if you repeatedly use debate jargon that your opponent clearly isn't aware of. A debate where everyone is respected, on the same page, and there's real, deep argumentative clash is much more interesting for all of us than a debate where both sides just speak loudly at each other.

Oh lastly, this is my first time judging over Zoom haha so if for whatever reason you need to reach me through email/text, feel free to at namitha@stanford.edu and 262-844-6671.

I debated Public Forum and Congress on the Wisconsin Circuit for 4 years (2015-2019).

I evaluate rounds strictly by the flow whenever possible. Speed is fine but it should not compromise the clarity of your arguments: I prefer teams that slow down to make coherent claims as opposed to teams that dump masses of cards at lightning speed. Similarly, I am much more likely to vote for teams that signpost and weigh effectively in their speeches. If you "extend" your arguments without telling me why they are a) relevant and b) more impactful than your opponent's, I find it much harder to vote in your favor. In addition, I prefer a team that has a consistent narrative/advocacy through the round. Also, evidence matters a lot to me, please do not misconstrue it.

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

School Affiliation: Rufus King HS

Debate Experience: 4 years of Public Forum Debate and 1 year of Congress on both local and national circuits. Tournament judge between 2019 and now. I have judged PF, LD and Congress.

Email: morgan.nicolesc@gmail.com

Until now, I have not judged this season. Please be mindful of this.

Other Notes:

1. Speed- Maintain a moderate speed throughout the round. I can effectively flow faster speech, but I suggest speaking slower if you want me to pick up on more intricate arguments. If you are speaking too fast, I will stop flowing. I will unmute myself if you become incoherent, and tell you ‘clear’.

2. Tech- In case there are lags or audio glitches, you may want to speak lower and enunciate more clearly, especially if you have a lot of analytics in your case.

3. Clash- Clash is great! Be effective in connecting the dots. This includes adequate extensions of arguments, turns, etc. If you plan to win the debate on a key argument, it should be mentioned in both the rebuttal and summary speeches.

4. CX- I do typically flow CX , but that doesn’t mean that new arguments can be presented without follow-up in the next speech. If it is not referenced and expanded, I will not weigh it.

5. Final Focus- Do not reference new arguments in the final focus. That time is used to clarify voters explicitly, and summarize the debate. Why do you win?

6. Signposting and Roadmaps- Both are important!! Saying that “I’m gonna go pro and then con” is incorrect and insufficient.

7. Analytics- I weigh evidence or analytics, but I do evaluate analytics that prove to be warranted and uniquely fit for the argument at hand.

8. Style- While style, jargon, etc. are important factors of the debate, they will be ineffective without substantive arguments. Demonstrate a clear understanding of your own material and the correct usage of terms. Do not assume that I know the nuances of your argument, even if that may be true.

9. Logic- If you are claiming that an argument ‘ isn’t fair’, ‘doesn’t make sense’, or ‘doesn’t apply to the debate’, give me a reason! None of these statements will hold any weight without clear explanation and reasoning.

10. Observations- I do take observations at face value, if the other side has not offered an alternative or suggested why I shouldn’t. Keep this in mind.

11. Equity- I will evaluate all arguments mentioned, provided that they are not rude, personally offensive to other debaters or derogatory. Any evidence of such arguments will result in docked speaker points.

In general, my number one rule is this: DO NOT LEAVE ME TO INTERPRET THINGS ON MY OWN! If I have to draw my own conclusions about your arguments, your voters are likely lost.

Background:

I competed in Public Forum and Congressional Debate for four years at Brookfield East High School. I won the Wisconsin State Championship in both categories during my debate career and competed on a national level so I can understand high-level argumentation. I'm now a student at Stanford University studying Computer Science and International Relations.

Rebuttal:

I want to see front lining (defending case) in the second rebuttal. I think it makes for better debate, and it's also strategic for you. Whether that's a 2-2 split is up to you, but just know that I think the bare minimum is addressing terminal defense and turns. Do not read new DAs (instead of framing them as turns if they interact with your opponent's case) and no "offensive overviews" in 2nd rebuttal.

Summary and FF:

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary. Please collapse args and give me voters.

Weighing:

This is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of the link, clarity of impact, meta-weighing, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I wanna see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Theory/Ks:

I don't really understand these so please caution. With that being said, I'm fine with paragraph theory if there is some sort of explicit abuse.

Evidence Ethics:

I'm ok with paraphrasing, and in some cases think it's better than reading cards, but you better be able to provide that source quickly. As far as citations in case, I wanna hear dates and author qualifications.

Evidence misrepresentation really grinds my gears. I know the difference between a power tag, or evidence getting overhyped as the round goes on, and a lie. If I think some shady stuff went down, I'll dock speaks at the very least. If it's particularly egregious, I'm comfortable voting off it.

Other Important Things:

Signpost: I wanna know where you are on the flow, and I want you to number your responses. You do not want me to think you under-covered or even dropped something just because I didn't know where you were. Make sure we're on the same page and we'll be good.

Speed: While I debated for four years and I am comfortable with some level of speed, I really prefer no speed and will not work to understand your arguments unless they are clear.

My debate background is in Parliamentary Debate in a program strongly influenced by policy debate. What I look for is clear structure and sound arguments, avoiding fallacies, and using credible evidence to support claims.

In round, being able to compare and evaluate evidence and to impact arguments to the round. Tell me why your argument matters.

Another key element of a good debate is CLASH. Attack and defend your arguments, impact them to the criteria and value, tell me which one should be weighted the most in my evaluation of the round and why.

Be nice and have fun!

PF Debate Judge Paradigm

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Enter names of schools you coach for, judge for, etc.

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do and for how many years? Enter type of debate (LD, PF, Policy) and number of years. Otherwise, put N/A.

How often do you judge public forum debate? Can say every weekend, few times a year, etc.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Just a little faster than conversational

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? no

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? Arguments, but it is meant to be a lay style of delivery

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? Give me voters

3. If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? If you think it is your winning argument, extend it and also make it a voter.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Evidence is to support arguments,

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

If you make a claim, link it to the res/argument made, and warrant why it applies. Support your claims with reasoning and evidence. The stronger it is, the more I can weigh it.

Updated: 12/2021

I debated PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and in Wisconsin for 4 years. I would say to treat me like any other ex-nat circuit PF-er.

Conflicts: Lakeville North/South, Whitefish Bay

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

General stuff about speeches:

Speed

--Shouldn't be a problem, but send a case doc/speech doc if you have it.

Extensions

--please extend arguments, not just authors (both is preferable)

--anything not extended in both back half speeches won't factor in my decision at the end of the round; no sticky defense

Second Rebuttal

--Second rebuttal has to frontline comprehensively, i.e. answer all turns and answer defense on the arg you intend to extend

Overviews

--I'm wary of offensive "overviews" (a.k.a. new contentions) in rebuttal; I think these are pretty unfair, especially if you're speaking second; I will presumptively not vote for them, so you need to make an argument for why I should evaluate them

--Overviews that are broader responses to your opponents' case, some way of contextualizing the round (like establishing uniqueness), or weighing, are all good

Weighing

--Weighing is good.

--Weighing can't start later than 2nd summary

--I don't default purely to probability*magnitude. Unless directed otherwise, I am much more likely to vote for a strong link with a smaller impact than a weak link with a larger impact.

--Lives = default highest mag

--Scope means nothing without mag

--If you and your opponent have competing weighing mechanisms, PLEASE tell me, with warrants, why yours is more applicable to the topic/more important/fits your argument better/any other reason to prefer your weighing. I'd much rather have you do the meta-weighing instead of me.

--I.e., Tell me why your weighing means you should win this particular round vis a vis your opponents' weighing, not just why your weighing is true. Why is "intervening actors" > root cause, or vice versa?

--I've never really found root cause weighing to be very compelling; a large alleviation of the effect, or an intermediate cause, outweighs a marginal impact to the root cause

Theory

--I really, really dislike judging theory debates, so initiate them at your own risk. Nonetheless, I feel comfortable judging them.

--For all theory paradigm issues, I have defaults/biases, but I'll vote on the flow. If you make a convincing argument against my bias, I'll vote for it.

--I will default to competing interps; most theory in PF is either disclosure or paraphrasing, and if you are going to not disclose/not read cut cards, I think you need to be able to defend a coherent position as to why that practice is a good practice.

--With that being said, reasonability makes much more sense to me when applied to frivolous theory, e.g. hyperspecific disclosure interpretations

--I am very unlikely to vote on an RVI

--I am biased in favor of disclosure and against paraphrasing

Other stuff:

--Cross is binding

--Ks will confuse me; progressive frameworks will not

--I'll keep flowing 5 seconds past the speech time; anything past that is "over time"

Stuff that will help your speaker points:

--For first speakers, good use of cross to set up the rebuttal

--Clear signposting

--Collapsing in the later speeches; e.g. only going for one contention instead of two

Stuff that will not help your speaker points:

--Rudeness (especially in cross)

--Changing how you explain a card throughout a round

--Taking jabs at your opponents’ intellect during your speeches

--Pretending something was in summ when it wasn't; pretending your opponents didn't respond when they did

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

Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round. Overall, I love PF as an activity, and I love well-done PF even more. If you are respectful to each other, focus on the analysis, and play fair, I will be happy :)

Email: mgellinas@uchicago.edu

I debated Public Forum in high school for four years on both the state (WI) and national circuit (NSDA, TOC). I now participate in American Parliamentary Debate at Brown University.

I flow, and I like to hear any important cards, frameworks, etc. extended in every speech, especially if it becomes an important voter.

Speed usually isn’t a problem, as long as you are articulate.

After cases are read, roadmaps help to preface subsequent speeches.

I’m keeping my paradigm short, but feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts (I can also talk about my decision at greater length/provide advice following the round).

Framework - I will be judging all rounds in terms of whatever framework is successfully presented to me. If the two sides can not agree on one framework, I will accept the one that I view to be more strongly argued, or the one more relevant to the topic (if the discrepancy between relevancy is significant). If neither side presents me with a framework, I will judge the round on what I believe the principal issue of the topic is.

Speaking - I'm never against speed in PF, but I do require all participants to be able to understand clearly what you are saying. Particularly with this season being online, try to make sure you aren't going at a speed where the internet will mess with your clarity. If I feel you are going too fast, I will remind you twice by saying "clear". After that, I'll do my best but if I couldn't hear what was said I won't flow it. In a similar vein, I would love to see signposting as it makes flowing for everyone much easier (and also is a good speech skill overall), but it isn't required.

Cross - Be respectful. I'll be dissociating during all three crosses, so if anything comes up which you feel benefits your argument, bring it up in the following speech for me to flow.

Evidence - The majority of arguments should have reliable evidence backing them up. I will be looking for claims, warrants, and impacts in each one. I love signposting, so if you can work that in, all the better for me, but if not that's okay too. Generally, I'll only call for evidence if I want to see how two pieces of evidence weigh against each other in the round, or if your opponent brings up sufficient doubt in the validity of your evidence.

Summary/Final Focus - I will not be flowing any new arguments made during these speeches, but new evidence/rebuttals for previous arguments are perfectly fine. My personal preference is for these to be concise and to the point (as their names would suggest). Addressing the major points from earlier speeches (and why your side wins them under framework) is more important to me than covering every single argument made.

IN GENERAL

- Be respectful and patient with online rounds

- Speak clearly

- Provide sound evidence and links to impacts

- Carry each argument through the round (even if it's just a one-sentence summary); dropped arguments will tend to flow in your opponents favor

I was a PF debater in high school, have been judging for years and have recently started coaching.

PF: I am a flow judge and like to see a clean line-by-line in rebuttal. Be sure you are not only responding to the argument your opponents' present but also the impact. Tell me why they can't access their impact in rebuttal. In summary, you should begin tying up any loose ends and begin to weigh. Tell me why your opponents can't access their impacts or why your impacts are bigger and better. Lives are a good default impact that is easy to compare. Final focus should be almost entirely voters. Give me 2 or 3 good reasons why I should vote for you. Don't make final focus a mini rebuttal. A good final focus does go over the entire round or every argument. Only focus on what you think you're winning. In terms of framework, unless one is proposed by either team I will default to util. In summary and final focus, tell me how your arguments/impacts align with the framework and why your opponents aren't meeting the framework.

LD: I have less experience in LD but will be able to follow more complex arguments. Be sure to talk about impacts explicitly and how they align to your value and criterion. Focus on the topic at hand, not the nature of debate or how your opponent is debating, except if they are being discriminatory. I am a flow judge through and through. Spend time developing clear answers to values and impacts that your opponent brings up and counter any arguments brough up against your case. A lot of LD arguments can become convoluted so take time to be clear so I have a clear understanding of what you are trying to say.

Speed: I can understand speed, but the faster you talk the less I will write down. As a flow judge, talking incomprehensibly or too fast could be detrimental to your success in the round.

Roadmaps: I won't time your roadmaps as long as you identify them as roadmaps before you start talking. Keep them brief. Don't waste time by saying that the order will be con then pro during first rebuttal. If you are going to talk about specific arguments identify those in your roadmap.

Also if it sounds like you can't breath, you're talking too fast.

Overall: Be civil. Don't yell at your opponents, partner or me.

TL; DR: I like debate, be nice, please WEIGH VOTERS/IMPACTS

For me, debate was one of the most important and impactful things I did while I was in high school. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to do debate and we should all make sure debate is as inclusive as possible.

Fundamentally, this is accomplished through mutual respect between and for competitors and judges. Everyone should feel comfortable debating in front of their opponents, their partner, and the judge, and I try to do my part to facilitate that. On the flip side, I have zero tolerance for disrespectful, snide, or patronizing comments, whether that is between students or between students and judges. If you shout at me or your opponent, your speaker points and/or the result of the round will reflect that.

This carries into arguments you might run: don’t run an argument/case just because you think your opponent won’t know how to respond to it. I hate it when people run garbage just because they can (i.e., poorly done meme cases). I’m a flow based judge, but I’ll still tank your speaks for being obscure or esoteric.

On to debate specifics:

To quote Ozan Ergungor--

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

Speed: I don’t like spreading. Debate is a speech event, please make sure I can understand you! If you think you’re going too fast, you’re going too fast. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you!

Crossfire: I don’t flow cross-ex unless you tell me to. Any arguments need to be included in subsequent speeches (except FF, no new arguments there).

Rebuttal split: The second rebuttal should start to begin to rebuild following the first rebuttal. If you don't, it puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on your partner to rebuild in the summary while also distilling voters and that can get messy.

Summary/Final Focus: Please, please, please, please, please give me voters and why you win the voters as soon as possible, ideally by the summary. Please do not make your summary a rebuttal reprise or a mini-case. Distill and collapse the debate efficiently and identify where the key points of clash are.

Evidence:

1. Give me dates, names, and sources
2. Paraphrasing is okay, but don’t abuse the bracket. Make sure you are accurately and truthfully representing evidence and not performing debate magic on stats and findings.
3. I will only call for a card if it’s being flowed in opposite directions or if either team asks me to (but remember the rules around a formal accusation).
4. I won’t take prep when you ask for a card, but I'll start to run it when you've had a chance to read it. Don’t abuse that though, otherwise I’ll run prep and dock your speaker points.

Miscellaneous:

Keep track of your own speech and prep times. I'll keep track too: if you go 30 seconds over the time limit on either, you can get a maximum of 25 speaker points. Don't steal prep either (i.e., saying "end prep" and then proceeding to take 10 more seconds of prep).

I always vote Pro on the second and fourth weekend of the month, and Con on the first and third weekend of the month. Nah I’m just kidding

I did PF, Congress, and Extemp at Madison West HS in Wisconsin. Since then I have been debating in college and judging for three years.

PF Paradigm:

If you have any questions or have any problems with my paradigm, please tell me before the round or after the round at heintzzachary@gmail.com. If you want additional feedback or advice, don’t be afraid to email me after the round.

I’m a flow judge but treat me lay for speed. Slow down. Never spread.

I like fewer pieces of quality offense, a strong narrative, and strong weighing in Final Focus.

No entirely new arguments after Rebuttal, no new supporting evidence or entirely new responses after first summary. Cards should only be used when they offer unique expertise, data, or examples to an argument, and I accept and encourage uncarded arguments.

Citation is author, source, date said once and then probably never again.

Don’t use authors, or sources as taglines.

I default to a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis framework. This means you need to provide arguments to prefer your framework over this default and your opponents can defend the default framework. I believe having a default allows for a wide range of arguments and forces debaters to actually engage with their frameworks rather than just try to sneak it in on fiat.

Use realistic impacts with smaller magnitudes and probability weighing over just pretending like everything causes World War 3 or financial crisis.

Please no Debate Theory unless its to address in-round unfair behavior, most especially discrimination. If your opponents, myself, or another judge discriminates against you in-round you should tell your coach and tournament organizers. I may drop you for discriminatory behavior, being excessively rude, or obviously and intentionally lying.

Speaker Points: Unless the tournament offers some sort of scale for judges to use for speaker points, I will award a 28-29 on average and will rarely go below 27 unless you were rude in round.

Hutchison, Casey

About Me:

I debated PF for four years at Middleton and coached/judged PF and Policy in the Madison area for five years after that. I dropped out of the debate community for a while after moving to DC and Minneapolis, but I'm back in Madison now and excited to be coaching and judging again. I work as a policy analyst for the federal government (HUD).

Speed:

I can flow fast arguments (not to spreading level though) if you speak clearly. I'd prefer you err on the side of fewer arguments but easier to understand. Please slow down on tags and citations. I don't typically give cues if you're speaking too fast, especially in virtual debates.

Evaluating the Round:

I prefer arguments over style, but style does matter in terms of speaker points - see that section below. In Final Focus, please clarify the most important arguments, how you won them, and why they matter. Give me a way to weigh your arguments against your opponent's. If you plan to go for an argument in Final Focus, please don't drop it in rebuttal and summary.

At the end of the debate, I look at my flow and circle the arguments that each team won. Then I use the weighing mechanisms each team gave me in their last speeches to decide which are the most important, have the biggest impacts, etc. I typically weigh evidence more highly than analytics, but both are important - 2-3 good, well-warranted pieces of ev with a clear logical thread wins over a 10-card dump any day. Please explain things really clearly to me - Why does your argument outweigh? Why is it important that your opponent dropped something? What does the card that you're extending prove?

Speaker Points/Ranks:

Speaking skills, politeness, structure, persuasiveness, etc. are very important to me. Please DO NOT be rude or aggressive toward your opponents. It should go without saying, but do not lie to me by saying something was dropped when it wasn't or by using false or manipulated evidence. It also bothers me when speakers go over their allotted time by more than ~5 seconds, and I reflect repeated over-time speeches against your speaker points.

Other Notes:

Don't just read cards at me - explain why they matter.

I love when teams compare the pro and con worlds.

I coached policy for a while, so I'm willing to dip toes into weird arguments. Just make sure you explain everything clearly and ensure you actually clash and engage with your opponent's case.

Signpost everything! If you didn't tell me where to write something on my flow, I'm searching for the right spot rather than listening to what you're saying.

I'm always happy to answer questions, talk after rounds, even go through the whole flow if you want! What's most important to me is that everyone enjoys themselves and learns something.

Background:

Debated for four years in Public Forum at Munster High School in Indiana. I won Indiana States twice, made late elim rounds at NSDA multiple years, and competed at the TOC, so I have experience with technical and lay debate. I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard University, where I compete in parliamentary debate (mostly APDA).

I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

Rebuttal:

I prefer to see frontlining (defending case) in the second rebuttal. I think it makes for better debate, and it's also strategic for you. However you want to do the split is up to you, but just know that I think the bare minimum for second rebuttal is addressing terminal defense and turns. Tread lightly when reading DAs/new offense in 2nd rebuttal — I'm not completely opposed, but it's easy to be abusive when doing so (I will vote on abusive second rebuttal theory - see below)

Summary and FF:

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

PLEASE GIVE ME WEIGHING IN BOTH SPEECHES.

Weighing:

This is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Theory/Ks:

I've been reading a lot of K lit lately but proceed with caution and make sure to go slow with these arguments; I have seen from experience that PF typically does not permit enough time for these arguments.

For theory, I have experience with source, date, and abusive second rebuttal overviews theory shells. I have a low threshold for theory in PF, but I will vote on it if it's explained clearly and the abuse is legitimate.

Evidence Ethics:

I'm ok with paraphrasing, and in some cases think it's better than reading cards, but you better be able to provide that source quickly and if you tell me to read pages upon pages of a PDF I'm gonna be sad :(. As far as citations in case, I want to hear dates and author qualifications.

Evidence misrepresentation really grinds my gears. I know the difference between a power tag, or evidence getting overhyped as the round goes on, and a lie. If you ask me to call for a card I 100% will, and I don't think it's interventionist for me to ask for something your opponents didn't. If I think some shady stuff went down, I'll dock speaks at the very least. If it's particularly egregious, I'm comfortable voting off it.

Other Important Things:

Signpost: I want to know where you are on the flow, and I'd prefer if you number your responses. You do not want me to think you undercovered or even dropped something just because I didn't know where you were. Make sure we're on the same page and we'll be good.

Speed: I am cool with speed and am fairly confident I'll be able to flow you. However, it is in your best interest to slow down for tags and important responses/extensions. The reality is, the faster you speak, the less I get down. That being said, I do not want this to be something that excludes someone from the round. If you need your opponents to slow down, just say "clear." If you blatantly ignore the opposing team's request to slow down, I will significantly drop your speaks and most likely drop you :).

Aggression: Don't be a jerk so we can all have a good time.

Crossfire: I usually don't listen to crossfire that intently, so if there's an important concession, it has to be in a speech to go on the flow. Again, don't be a jerk.

Analytics: I like logical responses a lot. Good logic is going to beat bad evidence, and I will 100% evaluate something that makes sense even if it's not carded.

*Definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Competed both in PF and Congress national circuit + TOC. Junior in college studying Human Rights and Sociology specializing in Immigration and Race and Ethnicity Studies.

Do

do a voter summary and FF *please*

less evidence that is better explained is better than 6 pieces of evidence that you don't explain and run through too quickly for me to understand. Especially during virtual debate, I simply cannot weigh what I can't understand.

Extend through Summary

If you're speaking second come back to your case in Rebuttal

Be clear and Organized

Have narrative / advocacy

WEIGH

Don't

Exploit arguments about inequities (Ie. racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc.) if you're only doing it to win. Handle these arguments with care and really try to understand from the perspective of the people impacted by these disparities. Do your research, use inclusive terminology, and use debate as a form of social justice instead of using social justice just to win a debate.

Fudge evidence

Speak faster than your words come out

Be Rude / Bigoted / Make the other team feel small

Be aggressive and loud especially during cross

PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions. I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, please PLEASE speak up and let me know so that I can communicate better.

Update for WI state 2021: Everything below pretty much applies except I'd just note that I'll do my best to be understanding with tech problems given the complications from a virtual format. Please try and be accommodating for your opponents (and maybe me as well) as I'm sure everyone is trying their best to make a tricky format work well.

PF Paradigm:

Brief: I debated PF for 4 years breaking to out-rounds at some natcircuit tournaments. I'm generally good with speed as long as you are. I'll do my best to be a solid "Flow" judge.

Details:

• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.

• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down by looking at me and saying "write that down".

• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.

• Clash as early as possible. I really appreciate "link-level" analysis because it makes flowing easier, and I can appreciate who's "winning" what arguments

• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech). The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case. Generally, don't drop arguments, and refute early.

• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make those arguments in case.

• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". Not that I don't believe in it, but I'm bad at following it and have a very high bar for what I think warrants a kritik.

Most of the paradigm shamelessly stolen from Benjamin Morris

Experience: competed in PF for 3 years

General: I am not going to be 100% flow focused, but it is important to me that arguments are analyzed, refuted, overturned, or extended throughout the round. I will listen to CX, however, arguments will flow stronger if they are extended to speeches. Focus summary and FF on what is important, however, mention anything that was uncontested briefly. Speed is fine, but not at the cost of intelligibility. The debate should be a safe space and any attempt to undermine the security of anyone will result in a severe loss of speaker points or the loss of round depending on the offense. Be respectful, kind, and fair.

Framework: The framework should be the main focus of the round and I will flow based on that. Arguments that do not adhere to the framework provided will not weigh as much. In the case of conflicting frameworks, provide evidence why yours should hold.

Arguments:

- I am willing to listen to logical and analytical arguments. When done correctly, they can weigh more than evidence-based arguments

- Arguments should include an evaluation mechanism that relates to the framework.

- I will accept most arguments (even bad ones) if they are uncontested by the opponents.

Evidence:

- The source, relevance, and quality will all be taken into account especially the background of studies if brought up.

- Explain any quotes with any context needed to understand them.

- Emphasize any main points after reading large blocks of evidence in speeches.

- I may ask for cards at the end to make sure they are valid, however, I will not judge on anything that I gain from reading that card other than large misrepresentation or fabrication.

BACKGROUND

I’ve coached Public Forum debate for 5 years. I debated policy in high school and college, as well as coaching policy at the high school level for a couple of years.

PARADIGM

I’m mostly a tabula rasa judge, therefore the following are only preferences.

ARGUMENT

I flow. Speed isn’t an issue, but you must be clear. I’m suspicious of long link chains. I enjoy theory in debate, but please develop your arguments.

Please don’t make me weigh the argument for you. Telling me that your contention outweighs because you say it does or that you save 30 million lives (when the one card you use says a larger process than your proposal may affect 30 million people) forces me to enter the debate. I don’t want to do that. Thus, I am sensitive to probability arguments.

I like topicality arguments, but few public forum debaters know how to make them because they rarely do. Be careful here.

Over the years, debaters who go line by line as opposed to big argument dumps tend to win more with me.

Extend defense in summary

EVIDENCE

Evidence quality really matters to me. Please don’t overclaim it. I’m sympathetic to evidence indicts and suspicious of evidence summaries.

Do not use ellipses to delete large amounts of evidence. If I think you’ve misinterpreted a card, I will call for it, even if your opponents don’t.

I want to hear the source first, before the evidence. Please be clear as to when the card ends and when you begin.

CROSSFIRE

I don’t flow crossfire and don’t vote on it unless it is accurately presented and developed in speech. As such, I do listen carefully to crossfire.

I have been a high school debater in the past, back in the days when we pushed around dollies of totes packed with paper evidence. While I have experience with debate I have only been back into judging for the past 2 or 3 years. At this point I feel comfortable with all the changes.

My background as a debater is in Policy debate. My teammates and I thought that tabula rasa was the coolest paradigm, so that's probably still influencing my decisions to this day. It's pretty much, I have no predispositions so you tell me how to vote.

I try to flow every argument and evidence card as thoroughly as I can but I need your help. Please speak clearly and keep your arguments in a coherent order. I can handle speed if you have a lot to cover in your speech. However, weigh that with the fact that if it was too fast for me to follow you will need to clarify your arguments as soon as possible. If you wait too long to make your arguments clear to me then it will be too late for me to fairly weigh them against others in the round.

"Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?" Sage advice I nabbed from another judge.

In crossfire I like to see that you are paying attention. Ask lots of questions and don't leave room for awkward pauses.

I did PF for four years in high school (Pennsylvania) and am now a freshman at Emory University (My friend from Wisconsin roped me into this).

I would say I'm tech > truth, but that doesn't mean I'll vote on poorly constructed arguments.

For me, clear communication and a strong line of logic are more important than exhaustive evidence or number of contentions. I flow, and like to hear arguments extended throughout the debate. For frameworks, if one team presents a framework and the other team doesn't contest, I will use that framework. I don't flow cross, so if you make any good points there, be sure to restate them in the next speech. For final focus, I won't accept any new arguments and would strongly prefer if you stuck to your voters.

I will absolutely not tolerate any spreading.

Feel free to ask me questions before and after the round ????

Background: In high school, I debated in PF for one year and Lincoln Douglas for two. I competed primarily on the traditional local Minnesota circuit and continue to coach/judge through the Minnesota Debate Institute. My degree is also in International Relations so fair warning about literature! Let me know if you have specific theoretical questions about the round; I'm happy to explain my rationale and recommend literature, especially for framework.

Paradigm: I prefer a solidly framed traditional debate, but am familiar enough with progressive debate and am okay with spreading provided file sharing with your opponent is done beforehand, however I am suspicious of tenuous link chains/impact claims and will buy analytical indicts on them - you don't need to worry about jargon, if something just doesn't make any sense, that's an argument I'll flow! Accessibility and equity are priorities to me in the round, but aside from that anything goes. I will vote down for blatant disrespect if it occurs - I hope it never comes to that, but that includes harsh personal comments in cross or speeches especially if they may be perceived in any context to be racist, trans/homophobic, or misogynistic. Please do not hesitate to ask about this in-round or approach me privately if necessary. Otherwise, I encourage you to be as thorough as possible as you set up the values and truths for the round - don't take normative args or assumptions for granted and weigh explicitly so YOU tell me what is most important, or I have to insert myself and make my own assessment! It's much better for you to be in control of the round.

Please do not use gendered language when referring to your opponent and be as respectful as possible especially during cross ex! I don't flow or vote on cross, but if your opponent contests a piece of evidence or a specific warrant in cross and you are unable to give them information they asked for I won't flow it later out of fairness. Also, I am very wary of trying to make the cards or the case do the work YOU should be doing as a debater. You need to be able to explain your warrants and evidence throughout the round, not just read it off Verbatim. Offense must be impacted to a framework and weighed - this is how you show me you know how to use it in the round, this isn't a speed reading competition.

I debated policy and LD in high school in the mid to late nineties. Then I coached at Marquette High School, only LD, for about 7 years during and after college. I do prefer a slower debate but can definitely handle speed if it's clear and enunciated. In the LD world, I really like a good and solid value debate and prefer the philosophical over the practical. I have judged PF for the past 2 years. I prefer debaters give me voters by the end of the round. Dropped arguments matter to me and I like a lot of organization on the flow so it's easy to follow.

Hello my name is Aananya. I did PF 4 years in high school and debated nationally in NCFLs and NSDAs.

PF- I am a flow judge and I appreciate line by line rebuttal. I like to see clash between cases, tell me why your case is better than your opponent. Start to weigh in summary and begin constructing voters for your partner to talk about in final focus. Please note if you bring up anything new during final focus I will not flow it.

LD- I do not know much about LD but I understand how LD works. I would like to know why you win, so a portion of your speeches should be explaining why you win so I do not have to make my own conclusion.

Speed- I am fine with speed but if you start spreading, remember the faster you talk the less I can write down.

Cross X- I do not flow cross but if you want me write something down, let me know

If you have any questions let me know before the round.

Please be civil with each other.

I am a middle school teacher, and have been casually involved in speech (primarily) and debate (somewhat) for almost 20 years. However, expect me to be a lay judge in PF. I take notes, but don't necessarily keep a structured flow. Referring to arguments is preferred to referring to cards.

It is important that partners are on the same page. If you want me to vote for something at the end of the round, I will generally expect to see it talked about in the summary. Ideally work to persuade me to your side, a believable story is more effective than one that is technically flowed through.

Don't make crossfire into an argument. If that happens you will probably lose speaker points.

Very Important: If you are rude, condescending, or otherwise make me not want to listen to you, I have made that my RFD in the past, regardless of what arguments are being made. I cannot be persuaded by someone who doesn't use persuasion to get me on their side. That type of behavior destroys the educational value of the debate and discourages both new debaters and judges from participating in the activity.

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.

Anton Shircel

Coaching:
Assistant coach/judge for Sheboygan South from 2004-2006
Assistant/Head coach Neenah from 2006-2010
Assistant coach Waukesha South 2012-2014
Head Coach Sheboygan North High School 2014-Present

High School Experience:
Policy debater at Sheboygan South for four years (1998-2002)
Debated Novice, JV, Varsity 4, and VSS
Participated in Forensics, Mock Trial, and Student Congress

Public Forum Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: This format is geared towards having citizen judges. Speed should reflect a quick-paced conversation. Clarity and enunciation is paramount in understanding the arguments. I shouldn't need to follow a transcript of your speech to understand what you are saying.

Framework: This is a key point that needs to be made in the first speeches. The pro/con need to show the framework of how they achieve a win for the round. This needs to be clearly stated and then proven in their contentions. A lack of framework shows a lack of focus. If for some reason that there isn't a framework, my default one would be a basic Utilitarian framework.

Off Case Arguments: I am not a fan of kritiks, theory, and other off-case arguments in a public forum round. Look, I am not going to write it off on my own. The opposition still needs to address it. However, it will not take much beyond a basic abuse argument for me to cross it off the flow.

Role of Summary & Final Focus: At this point, the arguments have been stated. Each side should be weighing the different positions and showing why they are ahead on the flow. The summary is also the point where there should be strategic choices made on collapsing or kicking contentions/arguments.

Policy Debate Philosophy: Policy Maker
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments. As far as open-cross examination, I am not against it. However, both sides must be okay with the situation.

Topicality: I am not the biggest fan of topicality. There must be a clear violation of the affirmative for me to consider voting. I like a structured t debate with clear standards, etc. and competing definitions. I see topicality as an a priori issue that I vote on first in the round.

Counterplans: I think counterplans are a great negative strategy. There needs to be a clear Counterplan Text and some sort of competitiveness. I am not the biggest fan of topical counterplans. Perms need to be explicit as well so that there is no vagueness.

Kritiks: I am a fan of kritks, but the negs need to make sure they understand them. It looks bad if the neg stumbles/contradicts themselves in the cross-examinations. Also, I need a clear alternative/world view from the negatives if they hope to have me vote on it at the end of the round. Again, perms need to be clear and explicit and show that competitiveness does not exist.

Theory: Theory is not the end-all of the rounds for me. I tend to look at rounds as real-world. Some theory would be needed at times such as perms/topicality but should only be used as support to an argument and not as an argument itself.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments.

Whole Res Vs. Plan Specific Cases: I prefer whole resolution debates. If I wanted a plan-specific case, I would be judging policy.

Counterplans: See my thoughts on plan-specific cases above. The same holds true for negative positions that go plan-specific.

Theory: It should be an essential aspect of your position. However, I do not enjoy when it falls into the theory of debate itself.

MOST IMPORTANT: Make sure you're having fun and being respectful. Seriously, if you're not having fun, it's not worth it.

Background:

Debated for four years in Public Forum at Brookfield East High School and now a freshman at Emory. My experience is mainly in flay debate.

I'm probably tech > truth but that does not mean I'm going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

Rebuttal:

I wanna see frontlining (defending case) in the second rebuttal. I think it makes for better debate, and it's also strategic for you. Whether that's a 2-2 split is up to you, but just know that I think the bare minimum is addressing terminal defense and turns. Do not read new DAs (instead frame them as turns if they interact with your opponents case) and no "offensive overviews" in 2nd rebuttal.

Summary and FF:

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). Please collapse args and give me voters. I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

Weighing:

This is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, meta-weighing, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I wanna see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Theory/Ks:

I don't really understand these so please caution. With that being said, I'm fine with paragraph theory if there is some sort of explicit abuse.

Evidence Ethics:

I'm ok with paraphrasing, and in some cases think it's better than reading cards, but you better be able to provide the cut card and original link/pdf (if requested). As far as in-case citations (verbal), I wanna hear dates and author qualifications/source.

Evidence misrepresentation really grinds my gears. I know the difference between a power tag, or evidence getting overhyped as the round goes on, and a lie. If you ask me to call for a card I 100% will, and I don't think it's interventionist for me to ask for something your opponents didn't. If I think some shady stuff went down, I'll dock speaks at the very least. If it's particularly egregious, I'm comfortable voting off it.

Other Important Things:

Cross: Try to be respectful but feel free to be assertive. I listen to cross but don't flow. If you say something in cross, I tend to believe it is binding. If your opponent makes an important concession, be sure to bring it up in speech.

Signpost: I wanna know where you are on the flow, and I want you to number your responses. You do not want me to think you under covered or even dropped something just because I didn't know where you were. Make sure we're on the same page and we'll be good.

Speed: I am okay with speed and am fairly confident I'll be able to flow you. However, it is in your best interest to slow down for tags and important responses/extensions. The reality is, the faster you speak, the less I get down. That being said, I do not want this to be something that excludes someone from the round. If you need your opponents to slow down, just say "clear." I will also yell "clear" once if I cannot understand you.

Argumentation: Feel free to run unconventional arguments. I was notorious for running random stuff. Running unique stuff (given warranting and evidence exists) always makes boring tournaments fun.

Analytics: I like logical responses a lot. Good logic is going to beat bad evidence, and I will 100% evaluate something that makes sense even if it's not carded.

*Definitely feel free to ask me questions before and after the round.

Background: I have a bachelor's degree in English education and have been teaching language arts at Sheboygan North High School for 20 years. I have coached debaters in policy, Lincoln-Douglass and public forum for 17 years, including multiple state champions. My school's emphasis is on public forum.

It is best if you think about me as a fairly well-informed member of the public to get my ballot.

As far as public forum, I appreciate being given a clear framework to weigh the impacts and other voters in the round.

Debate is an activity of communication, and speed is not effective communication. Public forum is about persuading the average American voter that your stance on the resolution is the best one.

All judges, coaches and debaters who promote speed/spread should reflect on the damage it is doing to the accessibility of the activity to prospective debaters and schools wishing to start a debate program. More skill is demonstrated by honing your arguments down to the point that they can be effectively presented in the allotted speech time rather than racing through myriad of contentions that are under-developed. Speed is not progressive; it is destroying this valuable activity.

That stated, I will listen to any arguments debaters wish to run and the speed at which they choose to speak them, even if that is not how anyone anywhere else ever speaks.

Clash is good.

Adjusting to the judge is good.

Extending your arguments with evidence and not just analytical arguments is good...but analytical arguments are also good.

I believe the rebuttals are often pivotal speeches in the entire round. I reward good ones and blame bad ones for losses, often.

Finally, despite what some public forum judges may tell you, it is not possible, in my mind, to drop arguments in pf. If it was stated, it's on my flow. You don't have to go over every single argument in every single speech for me to continue to consider it. But if an opponent fails to address a key idea, certainly point that out.

I started debating in 1998, competing in Policy Debate through High School and College on a scholarship. My personal debate highlights include state champion (2001), successful trips to both NSDA (formerly NFL) and CEDA Nationals, speaker award at the Pan-Pacific Debate Championship (South Korea, 2003). I have served as a debate camp counselor (Whitman College; Bellingham Debate Cooperative at WWU) and as a paid debate evidence contributor for West Coast Publishing. I have coached and judged Policy, LD and Public Forum in the many years since then.

You may put me in a specific paradigm via your argumentation in the round. In the absence of this, I will default to my own style of policymaking, which is to compare the world of the aff (pro) vs the world of the neg (con) and vote for the "world" that solves more/bigger problems than it creates.

I prefer impacted arguments with "even if..." type analysis. Chances are you aren't winning everything in the round, so this helps me as a judge understand how you'd like me to weigh competing arguments.

On a sidenote, please be ready to begin your speech when you stop prep time and/or run out of it. If you tell me to end prep time (or run out of it) and after a reasonable amount of time have not actually started your speech, I will start your speech time so please be prompt.

Noah Trilling
noah.trilling@gmail.com

Background

I did policy debate from 2003-2007 (Oceans-Service) at Sheboygan North High School with Jon Voss (currently coaching at Glenbrook South High School) In 2007-2008 (Poverty) I was an assistant coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI under head coach Bill Batterman (currently coaching Woodward Academy) In 2008-2009 (Energy) I was the head coach of Brookfield Central High School. From 2009-2013 I judged frequently at National and Regional Tournaments.

Overview
Paradigm-Tabula Rasa: I’m an open-minded critic but, like everyone, I have certain argument preferences. Don’t let my personal argument preferences alter your strategy, however. You should run arguments based on your pretournament preparations and the arguments you hear in the debate. The arguments that you feel most comfortable with and believe are appropriate for the round will be your best arguments. I’d rather hear arguments you’re familiar with than have you alter your strategy and not know the evidence. I will evaluate all arguments presented in the debate and attempt to minimize judge intervention (to things like mischaracterizing evidence, cheating, etc).

Delivery: Since I've been out of practice evaluating debates for a while now, I've come to prefer evaluating slower debates with more comparative evidence analysis than rounds won by spreading the other team out of the debate. If you are speaking very quickly it is possible I will miss some nuances of your analytics. You need to slow down and highlight these arguments or I may miss them.

Evidence Quality: Researching high quality evidence, explaining warrants effectively, and executing case-specific strategies is the surest way to win in front of me. At the end of the debate I almost always call for evidence. If you are overstating the quality of your evidence or mischaracterizing its claims I might simply disregard it entirely. You are absolutely responsible for providing truthful evidence from qualified sources that accurately represents the nature and scope of your claims.

How to Win
Topicality: I find reasonability claims a bit illogical and unfair in the same way that I find “Counterinterpretation: Only our case is topical” illogical and unpredictable. Any offensive reason that you are "reasonably topical" should be applied as a standard for a definition that includes your affirmative. Alternatively you can spin these arguments as offense against the negatives interpretation. If you can not meet the negatives interpretation AND you can not provide an interpretation with sufficient offense to win the debate, I fail to see why the affirmative should win a topicality debate. Although competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, the affirmative still has the burden of providing a reasonable, predictable interpretation that includes the affirmative. Instead of making vague claims about reasonability, invest time in how your counterinterpretation is grounded in a literature base, preserves core affirmative cases or preserves negative counterplan, kritik and disadvantage ground.

That being said, I don’t like voting on topicality. I’d much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than deal with absurd distinctions on the definition of increase or substantial that have no effect on the division of ground. Negatives need to spend a substantial amount of time in the block and the 2NR explaining the significance of the violation in terms of specific ground and education losses or prove an instance of abuse in the round.

Theory: I am growing increasingly disturbed by the proliferation of blatantly non-competitive plan-inclusive counterplans designed to conform to generic disadvantages (spending, politics, etc). Negatives need to be more creative, plan case-specific strategies and cut advantage counterplans instead of avoiding debating the case.

However, like topicality, I would much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than vote on cheap shot theory arguments. PICs are one of the few theory arguments I have strong feelings about. I also typically find theory as a reason to reject an argument, not the team. Especially with PICs though winning theory can be a significant blow to the 2NR’s impact calculus.

Kritiks: Kritiks are excellent when they are executed properly. However, it is important that you are able to explain the significance of your impact, especially if it is operating outside the traditional utilitarian/policymaking framework. You also need to explain how the alternative functions to overcome the status quo and solve the 1AC.

Many teams have difficulty answering kritiks and I don’t understand why. Kritik alternatives tend to greatly overstate the impact of their adoption. Its important for affirmative teams to highlight the specificity of 1AC solvency evidence to create solvency deficits to the alternative. Instead of allowing kritik hacks to dominate the internal link debates, remind me of the practicality of the affirmative and its ability to create incremental positive change.

Counterplans: Counterplans need to be functionally competitive and have a solvency advocate. As I noted above, I am not a big fan of a lot of Generic PICs. Most generic PICs cede too much of the solvency and impact debate to the affirmative. At the same time, PICs rarely capture the intent and the specificity of the 1AC cards, leaving the negatives with a solvency deficit. Instead of running generic PICs to capture 1AC solvency evidence, run advantage counterplans or case specific PICs with specific solvency evidence, internal net-benefits, case-specific disadvantages and impact turns on case.

Disadvantages/Case: I generally file all globally cataclysmic events (environmental collapse, nuclear war, extinction, etc) in the same category of terrible fates. To win you should emphasize probability in impact analysis. Having high quality evidence and extrapolating their warrants will go a long way to convince me of the probability of your impact scenarios. Focusing on smaller impact scenarios is a great way to distinguish your plan from the solvency claims in PICs, big disadvantages, and kritik impact turns and alternatives.

Speaker Point
30/29.5-Perfect/Excellent: A perfect or nearly perfect performance.

29/28.5-Above Average: A good performance that combines technicality, strategic execution, and impressive evidence quality. These speakers should be in contention to break and receive a speaker award.

28/27.5-Average: This indicates an average performance. I would give these to a team with sufficient technical skills and execution to win the debate, but perhaps not in contention to clear or win a speaker award.

27/26.5-Below Average: This indicates a poor performance such as a major strategic error or technical error that had an effect on the outcome of the debate. These will usually be given to a losing team that struggled throughout the entire debate or a debater who made an especially serious strategic error.

I recently debated Public Forum at Madison West for three years ending in 2018-19 with experience in 1st and 2nd speaking (but alas, back in the anxious days of the 2 minute summary), and have more limited experience in BQ and Congress. I currently study Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (a different sort of argumentative debate, you could say). You can feel free to ask anything about my preferences before a round or to ask for clarification after a decision. I will try to disclose and give some feedback all of the time.

A few guidelines. If you are a less experienced team, doing these things may win you a round against a more experienced team. If you are a more experienced team, doing these things may help you win a round against a less experienced team.

1. Being kind and respectful.

2. Being honest and reasonable. I would greatly prefer you concede a bad point than sketchily try to defend it.

3. Explaining why whatever thing you're talking about matters. Collapsing tends to make this easier. I am a somewhat questionable judge in the sense that I will vote for an argument which is half-dead ahead of one winning on the flow if I understand the importance of the former and don't understand the significance of the latter.

4. Having a narrative. I tend to not flow final focus; instead, I like to listen for narrative. Collapsing tends to make this easier.

5. Asking closed-ended (yes/no, multiple choice) questions in cross and explaining why the responses matter in later speeches. I do not flow cross-ex but I do listen most of the time.

6. Weighing. Please make sure you have extended your impacts cleanly first before going on to weighing.

On a couple of hot topics:

Speed: I like a speed of around 190wpm (note: this is slow for debate), and I particularly like a slow Final Focus.

Theory: I think extra-topical arguments can be important, but they have to be super relevant and explained well, or I will probably vote against them.

Framework: I think too many teams just run stock util. I'm definitely on-board with seeing some well-argued deontological frameworks (I'd be willing to give out straight 30s to a team who extends, weighs, and wins under a clever form of this).

Evidence: I'm fine with paraphrasing as long as you aren't making stuff up. I also think well-warranted points made without a card can work if weighed over conflicting evidence (especially on framework).

Speaker points: 29-30 is memorable, 27-28 is par for the course, 25-26 means I thought you probably just had an off round, and below 25 means I thought you should have been a bit more respectful. If I give you a higher score I mean it as a sincere compliment!

All in all, your result in a round doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of life. Don't stress out too much, and enjoy yourselves!

I was a public forum debater for three years at George S. Parker High. I am also not a Senator in any capacity.

Tabula-rasa, within reason. This is, however, not an invitation to insist that I buy your squirrely arguments.

Speak at a speed that leaves your diction in tact, do not spread. If you speak above 200 words per minute, know that I will ignore you.

Show grace, patience, and charity to your opponents. Address the best possible interpretation of your opponents argument.

I like the existence of framework, but I especially like framework that is meaningfully discussed and implemented.

Less is more. Less total arguments, more quality ones. Anything above three contentions is absurd, but one or two is ideal.

Flow judge, but uncarded analysis is totally acceptable and often preferred to mangling evidence for the sake of narrative.

Crossfire should be questions and answers, back and forth. Questions end with a question mark, and are not accusations.

The summary should contain all offense and defense you intend to weigh in final focus.

Collapse off bad arguments, tell me as clearly as you are able what weighing you are winning.

In final focus, specifically enumerate the voters of the round. Yes, that does mean you should tell me which ones you are winning.

ONLY if you want to (._.) Email chain for evidence exchanges, disclose your cases to me and your opponent.

*christianjamesauthor02@gmail.com*