Iowa Novice Night 4
2021 — NSDA Campus, IA/US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Iowa City West High School '23
I’m currently a varsity PF debater
email@example.com (for card sharing)
NOVICES: take everything below with a grain of salt, debate the best you can, and have fun!
- I will always disclose, unless told not to
- Run what you want, as long as it's warranted
- If you bring me bubble tea before the round, i'll up your speaks by 0.5 :)
Things I want to see:
- Off-time roadmaps & signposting
- Trigger warning if your arguments could be sensitive
- You need to start frontlining in 2nd rebuttal
- Weighing, especially in summary and final focus
- Interaction (aka, actually RESPOND to your opponents' arguments)
- Time yourselves
- collapse, don't extend stuff you know you can't win
Things I don't want to see:
- "Bruh homies out here having an asthma attack while reading cases." Don't spread. This is pf.
- Obviously, don't be rude in cross
- New arguments in final focus or 2nd summary. This is abusive; your opponents don't have enough time to respond.
- Skewed cards
- Bringing stuff up in final focus that wasn't brought up in summary
- DON'T just read card after card. You need to analyze and explain how they prove your point
Below: oops something went wrong :(
Evidence-supported topicality is a key to my vote. Avoid exploding the topic just for the sake of shock value--if you've honed your skills, the strength of your argument will win over gimmicks. Being organized is another important factor; the better I can follow your lines of reasoning, the more likely I am to vote your way. Confidence is great, but arrogance can be off-putting.
I have a strong background in debate as a former HS student debater and current HS debate coach. My preferences are: That debaters not spread, if I can't follow your arguments it's hard to persuade me. That crossfire be cordial, being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose you points. I prefer that your evidence support your argument, not that it tangentially might apply. I also an extensive background in speech as a high school student, as a high school Speech Coach and speech Judge.
Public forum debater for Johnston
- Clarity over speed always
- Warrant everything you say
- Be respectful towards your opponents (in other words do not be rude in cross, let the other person speak!)
- I don't count stuff in most crossfires unless you make it a point and bring it up again in a speech
- Please don't bring up new evidence past summary, and don't bring up new responses in final focus
- Don't make up evidence! Paraphrasing is fine unless you are misinterpreting evidence
- Always weigh !!
- Extend arguments through out your speeches in order for me to evaluate them
- I'm chill with k’s /theory /etc and pretty much any other out of the box arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained
- And don't stress about speaks
Email me if you have questions and send me cards/cc me @ firstname.lastname@example.org
I did 4 years of PF at Roosevelt, now I study poli sci and IR at the University of Iowa and coach PF at Roosevelt
ask me any questions youd like and let me know what I can do to make your debate experience less stressful and more safe
Please set up as quickly as possible, don't wait for me to get there, pre flow before the round
Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed, I do not like when you are too fast to hear, don’t spread, slow down and make better arguments with more warranting
The more extravagant an argument is the lower my threshold for responses will be, creativity is good but it can easily become stupidity
don't be rude in general and in cross, especially if you’re rich/white/male presenting. If you are, be aware of your advantages and check back on them however you can at all times. A good attitude is really important. If you’re exclusionary I’ll start to want to drop you, so don’t be
Do not shake my hand
time yourselves pleasseee and be extremely honest with it, call out people that go over time
Email chains are amazing and so are speech docs if you’re feeling it
Paraphrasing is fine but do not change the meaning of your evidence. I’ll call for evidence if I’m told to or if I need a it for my decision When I call for it, if your evidence is clearly misrepresented, I’m striking to from the flow and dropping your speaks.
Evidence comparison is cool, so is knowing your own from case and rebuttal super well, and being able to use it!
collapse, this can start in rebuttal, summaries cover both sides, extend/frontline important defense, cleanest offense, a well thought out narrative, and good, warranted and comparative weighing
author names/any relevant citation stuff and what the card says, and why it’s important/what it does in the round. The last part is rly important, implicate your evidence.
Second speaking teams should frontline at least offense and/or what they’re going for in rebuttal. Frontlining is strategically advantageous but its not required. If you frontline your entire case, I’d be surprised if you properly cover the other case
If you want me to evaluate your arguments, they must be in both summary and final focus entirely
I’ll listen to and vote off anything as long as it’s not discriminatory. However, I don’t suggest running any k’s/theory/etc as I have basically no experience with these, and will not know how to evaluate them the way you’d like me to.
if you do want to run anything technical, make sure the other team is ok with it before the round.
I prefer logical warranting and smart analysis backed by good cards, rather than unwarranted card dumps/blippy arguments, this goes for rebuttal especially but also the second half, depth, warranting and nuance is everything
Overviews muddle the flow. offensive overviews suck, if the offense is that important you should just read it in case. defensive/general response overviews are ok, but not when they’re 1 minute. Weighing overviews can just be done on the impact level of the argument itself, as normal weighing.
I’m not giving you much offense off a turn at the end of the round unless you develop it well, frontline it, impact it, and weigh it. Turns are fun tho!
Do it! With three minute summaries I hope to see much more weighing in the second half of the round.
Use mechanisms, link weighing, weigh in rebuttal, in cross if you want, develop it
COMPARATIVELY WEIGH, take into account your opponents weighing and what say against your weighing
Just do all that stuff and you'll be fine, I don't really give less than a 28/27.5 unless you need to rly grow. But if you’re exclusionary/rude/mean...then it’ll be fun to see how low they can go
Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, behaviorally "icky." if you make snarky remarks that feel like personal or direct attacks to your fellow competitors, you immediately lose speaker points
Background: I am a teacher and coach. I coach primarily speech but I enjoy congress and PF. I flow; I’m not a Policy person in PF, they are separate for a reason. I am not a lay judge, but I expect to see adaptation in round as it shows a level of skill in competitors who can persuade to their judges' paradigms. My hope is that the experience is fun and rewarding for you, even if you don't win your round. :)
What I look for in a round:
Coherency, strong links and evidence >>> speed for me, always. I believe public forum means *public* access — if you cannot explain or adapt to a lay judge, then do you understand what you’re debating yourself? I abhor grandstanding that sidelines partners or strokes egos; same for any rounds that chase agreeing on a definitions that goes no where. I rarely call for evidence, so if you don’t then I will take it as agreeing to the other team’s use. I also believe that if there are fundamentally untrue things ("racism good") I will not accept them in round (truth over tech).
Teams should, explicitly, at the beginning determine how the round should be weighed!!
Don't steam roll your opponents during cross, especially if you ask them a question - interjecting so they cannot even respond to your question is no go for me. In your summary and final focus, I want to know why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, etc.
For congress: I want to hear refutation --> I want to see warrants (you are all students!) --> I want to see clash and I want advancement of the debate! I cannot stand questioning when the speaker is rude or dismissive of questions, even if they are simple or irrelevant questions. Congress is unique in its demand of decorum and if you cannot handle being a decent person in a role play of congress, then you need to reevaluate if you understand how congress in this activity functions.
One of my favorite parts of Congressional debate is that it combines debate and public speaking aspects with the performance side of speech. Given the time limits we operate under, clear and concise speeches are important-cite your evidence, refute your opponents respectfully, and be sure to point out your impacts. Do not waste the chamber’s time with games that will run the clock down (yours or your opponent’s during questioning). It’s disrespectful and does not move the debate forward.
I am evaluating the full time in session, not just the 3-minute snippet of speeches: how are you working with (or against) your colleagues? How are you working together as a chamber to get legislation passed? Questions-both asked and answered-do count into my scoring.
The Presiding Officer is more than just a timekeeper. They set the pace, organization, and mood of a chamber. To be a new PO-or to be a PO at a high-level competition-can be a risk. Their effort is considered when I score. Point of order: There is no mathematical pattern as “random” selection for questioning.
I'm a sophomore and have been a public forum debater since last year. My pronouns are she/her/hers.
Add me to the email chain: my email is email@example.com.
If you have any questions about the round, my decision, or debate in general, please don't hesitate to ask or email me after the round :)
Things I want to see:
- Warranted arguments
- Interaction w/ the opponents' arguments: I'll likely mention dropped args/etc in my feedback but it won't impact my decision unless the other team points it out and tells me why the dropped arg matters
- If you want me to consider an arg/response/impact in my ballot, extend it throughout all your speeches
- Off-time roadmaps and signposting (!!) are appreciated
- In summary and final focus: tell me why you won the round w/ weighing, voters, line-by-line, etc
Things I don't want to see:
- Be rude: I will dock speaks.
- Spread: if I miss an arg, that's on you
- Bring up new args in the last half of the round: I won't vote off it bc your opponents don't have adequate time to respond
- Lie: about anything. Your evidence needs to say what you claim it says; I want to intervene as little as possible, so tell me to read and/or why I should drop badly cut evidence
- Discriminate: at all. Your speaks will nosedive and I may drop you.
- 30: v good
- 29-28: pretty good
- 27-28: average
- 25-27: not bad
- Below 25: congrats, you messed up