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 what your opponents say)
- 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.
- don't read theory, unless there's an ACTUAL reason. I hate frivolous theory (i've heard ppl run like: "their walls are yellow, that distracts us and makes me nauseous so drop the debater." I've also heard ppl run theory bc their opponents "font was too small" when they shared their evidence. And I've also heard ppl running theory bc their opponents apparently shouldn't "be in the same room as their partner" during online debate.)
- DONT READ THEORY/Ks/OTHER PROGRESSIVE STUFF IF YOU KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABT PROGRESSIVE PF. (e.g. if you know your opps are from a school that doesn't compete on the natcircuit that often, and mainly debates locally..... then they've probably never ever heard of the wiki in their lives. So don't read disclosure theory, that's just flat out rude b/c you know you have a major advantage)
- 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 evidence
- 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
- Going way overtime when giving speeches (this one team once gave a 6 min final focus...)
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 PF for 4 years at Roosevelt, now I study poli sci and IR at the University of Iowa and coach PF at Roosevelt
ask me any questions you'd like and let me know what I can do to make your debate experience less stressful and safer
please read a trigger warning if you are going to talk about something sensitive but ESPECIALLY if you are graphically depicting it
Please set up as quickly as possible, don't wait for me to get there, flip and PRE FLOW BEFORE THE ROUND.
Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed, I can flow speedy stuff but I can’t flow spreading.
The more extravagant an argument is the lower my threshold for responses will be, creativity is good but don’t run stupid arguments.
Don't be rude, especially if you’re rich/white/male. If you are, be aware of your advantages and check back on them. A good attitude is really important. If you’re exclusionary I’ll lower speaks and start to want to drop you, so don’t be.
Do not shake my hand...ever
Time yourselves and opponents pleasseee and be extremely honest with it, call out people that go over time
You can post round me if you want lol might be fun
Email chains/card docs are amazing, so are speech docs if you wanna be quick quick or techy.
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 it for my decision. When I call for it, if your evidence is clearly misrepresented, I’m striking it from the flow and dropping your speaks.
Evidence comparison is cool, and so is knowing your own from case and rebuttal super well, and being able to use it!
I’ll listen to and vote off anything as long as it’s not discriminatory. I’m kind of familiar with K’s/theory/etc but not fully informed on how to properly evaluate them.
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.
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 over like 2 minutes. Weighing overviews can just be done on the impact level of the argument itself.
I’m not giving you a ton of offense/voting off a turn unless you develop it well, frontline it, impact it out and (hopefully!!) weigh it
Collapse, I’m embarrassed for all the good teams I’ve seen that don’t collapse. Collapsing can start in rebuttal.
summaries cover both sides, extend/frontline important defense, cleanest offense, a well thought out narrative, and comparative weighing, there should be enough time if you’ve collapsed well.
Author names/date/any relevant citation stuff and what the card says, and why it’s important/what it does in the round. The last part is really important, implicate your evidence and arguments pleassseee.
Second-speaking teams should frontline at least offense and/or what they’re going for in rebuttal. Front lining is strategically advantageous but it's not required. Don't frontline your entire case, only turns and what you're going for.
If you want me to evaluate your arguments, they must be in both summary and final focus entirely.
Do it! Weighing in cross, rebuttal and whenever is great.
Use weighing mechanisms, link weighing, weigh in rebuttal, in cross if you want, develop it. COMPARATIVELY WEIGH, take into account your opponents weighing when you’re weighing. Meta weighing is also helpful
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 really grow. But if you’re exclusionary/discriminatory/mean...
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 — sexism, racism, and other harmful actions&behaviors is an automatic thumbs down, no ballot from me. Do not deliberately misgender your opponents, I will report you to the tournament for harassment.
Background: Teaching, judging, head coachin' XP. Angles that touch on collective social benefit and education speak to me as a judge - I believe there is a way any team can win the majority of ballots if they do their homework, ask questions, adapt. The exception to why not all judge ballots ? -> those inhospitable judges who stand on problematic foundations - but that's a conversation for the ombudsman and equity panel; I strongly believe judges & all adult shareholders need to be student-centered, constructive, and responsible for maintaining healthy competition and continuous learning in this activity. If you are a coach or judge focused on *just* 'winning' or being 'right' and right is only your values, then ew. if you are a judge, coach, or student who makes comments on competitors' appearance or things they cannot control, I will call you out in round -- student or adult, I don't care, I will call your behavior out. Do not be a jerk to children or peers. I will do the same if your comments in their meaning or delivery reflect historically oppressive comments said to marginalized debaters.
I flow -- we will rarely make eye contact in round so if I am no longer flowing, it means things have gone clear as mud. I’m not a Policy person in PF, they are separate for a reason. I am not a lay judge. But I won’t do the leaps of logic for you in round and I want what is argued and debated in round to matter than the judge’s own opinion. I expect to see adaptation in round *especially on mixed panels* as it shows a level of skill in competitors who can persuade to their judges' paradigms. Your lack of adaptability to a panel can hurt your speaker points, even if you had my flow - especially if you hit my red flags (above). My hope is that the experience is fun and rewarding for you, even if you don't win your round. :) Debate is an educational sport!
What I look for in a round:
Coherency, strong links, and evidence -- WHY are your impacts more urgent, critical, all around more relatable?? >>> 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 go no where. Buzz words and speed that don't provide good solid ethos, pathos, logos won't mean much. 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). Do not play devil’s advocate on people’s real lived experiences and trauma.
Teams should, explicitly, at the beginning determine how the round should be weighed!! Otherwise I will go with cost benefit
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.
reading this entire paradigm should give you a straight forward understanding of how to win my ballots, infer my values, and what to avoid in round.
PLEASE DO NOT ASK TO SHAKE MY HAND, ever. Lol. We learned things from the pandemic y’all. Fist bump or wave at me — it’s chill.
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 junior and have been a public forum debater for two years. 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