Southern States Middle School Speech and Debate Championship
2021 — NSDA Campus, US
Public Forum/Extemp Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
(I don't particularly care whether you call me Haneen ((it's pronounced like honey-n)) or Ms. Awadallah ((it's pronounced exactly as it looks, don't worry)), but I do go by she/her pronouns and I do care about remaining respectful throughout the round.)
-No spreading; some speed is okay as long as it's still understandable.
-Strongly prefer roadmaps.
-Puns are highly appreciated.
-Strong supporter of debate rules; don't toy and bend them. Time limits are limits; after 10-second grace period, I will stop flowing.
-If your opponent drops an argument, you have to point it out; I cannot and will not hold it against them otherwise.
-No ghost dropping.
-Feel free to ask me questions before the debate! :D I'm excited to meet and listen to all of you; if you want to ask me about my paradigm or just a general question about debate before we begin, I'm here for it!
I debated in PF for 4 years and did Prose for 3 years and was my school's team captain for both events :)
2. Unless you are kicking case to go for turns/disads, Second Rebuttal has to respond to defense and turns that are read in first rebuttal
3. pls weigh but don't start shouting random weighing mechanisms to me without clearly warranting
4. extensions are crucial!!!
6. summary and final should mirror each other
7. If you don't know to what I'm referring to, don't worry! You can always ask me questions before the round, but essentially I want you to present your arguments convincingly and logically while adequately responding to the arguments of the other team
8. “If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20." -Cara Day
9. I don't have too much experience with progressive arguments so if you're going to read them make sure you're warranting is clear and to the point!
If you have any other questions feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or just ask me before the round begins.
Speech & Debate Background
High School 2002-2006: Competed in IE's, Congress and Extemp/Impromptu
Orange Coast College 2007/2008: Back to back CA State Champions and Phi Ro Pi (Nationals) Champions with multiple individual awards in IE's, Reader's Theater and Platform Speeches.
Cal State University, Long Beach 2010: AFA-NIET National Champion 3rd Place Prose
Debate Judging Paradigm
Please add me to your email chain: email@example.com
- Due to current online formatting, don't spread. Speak clearly and audibly (you can still speak quickly, but make sure it's very clear). A few seconds lag/drop and an entire portion of your argument could be lost. Be combative but courteous/cordial - you're attacking arguments, not individuals.
- Avoid fallacious arguments. If a competitor makes a fallacious argument, call attention to it.
- I don't like having to step in. If called upon, I will. If you are damaging the process of the debate, it will not be looked upon favorably.
- Don't be afraid of authorship; a well constructed basis for the debate is imperative to begin the round. Though, I feel authorship limits your ability to showcase your argumentation/rebuttal, I tend to rank authors well (assuming a strong basis). That said, with 2+ topics in a single session of Congress, I wouldn't recommend authoring more than one of the bills.
- P.O.'s are also ranked fairly well by me, assuming you maintain order and consistency throughout the session.
- This is debate! Reading your speech verbatim and not addressing previous speakers is heresy. Repeating points made by speakers and adding nothing to them is a waste of time. Repeat points only as a means to rebut an assertion from the opposing senators. Repeat points for clarification. Repeat points if you are the last speaker and summing up.
- Well-constructed, quality, fact-based (source based) arguments over quantity.
- I value insightful responses to challenging questions during the questioning period. By that same token, if you ask challenging and provoking questions, it will reflect well on your round placement.
- As a member of Congress, you are representing your constituents. They should be a factor in your argumentation thought process.
World Schools Debate
- I heavily value speaking compellingly and passionately. That means that you shouldn't be spreading. Also, make sure that you keep in mind that because this is WSD, you should be considering the perspective of the world, not focusing your debate on a specific country.
- I will side with the negative until the affirmative proves the solvency of their plan thoroughly. The burden lies on the affirmative to change the status quo. If a CP is ran, then I will decide who can prove solvency, efficacy, and impact of their plan best. Be courteous, but don't be afraid to get into the debate.
- If you can't run a K or it's clumsy, don't run one. I'm not looking for K's. If you do it well, fantastic, but it will not break the round if you avoid it. Non-topical K's need to have exceptional linkage.
- I like philosophical values and breaking down your opponents philosophical pitfalls.
- Weigh your impacts well!
- I love empirical evidence.
- Don't just read evidence, make it passionate!
- XC can add a lot to your speaker points for me. Answer honestly. Don't refuse to answer questions!
- Sign post, sign post, sign post. I can't rap, but my flow chart is on point. We all need to know where you are.
- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.
- Weighing impacts is critical! But don't just say, "this impact is outweighed" ... the burden of proof is on you.
- I will not call for a card unless I am explicitly told to or I absolutely need to make a decision based on conflicting evidence.
Preferred name: Kat
I would like to be on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm currently a third-year Varsity/Open debater at Liberty University, and I debated policy 4 years in high school. As of now, I've gone to the NDT once. I've judged Policy, PF, LD, Parli, and various speech events.
I'm truth over tech (yay!) BUT if you assert something repeatedly without warrants, I'm not going to vote for it. And, no, re-reading the tag and the author is not warrant analysis. Explain to me why the Truth matters in this instance, and how it lowers the credibility of your opponent's argument.
I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.
If you're a K team, I've got some good news for you: I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with the Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.
If you win the following, you'll more than likely win the debate:
1.) The Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.
2.) Impact weighing. I hate nothing more than two ships passing in the night with no clash. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).
3.) Alt explanation. Dear Lord, this is arguably the most important. If you win the above, but you don't tell me what the world of the Alt is, I'll probably scream (internally, of course, while I pull my hair making a decision). In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links.
Do these things, and you're golden. :^)
Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.
I also think that most Counter-Interps are super wack, but I'll vote on any one, esp is the other team drops it.
ROB's are muy importante. Gotta lmk what the ballot and I are supposed to be doing in this round.
I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2-3 minutes. Pls.
Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:
I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense. If an increase in US spending leads to global economic collapse, the least you could do is tell me how.
Core generics like the Japan DA are always an option in front of me, as long as the link is well explained and the Counterplan you run with it doesn't link. This being said, explain why the CP is preferable to the Aff.
Also, Consult CP's are garbage.
Impact calc is everything!!! If you're blanking, look at my laptop. It has timeframe, magnitude, and probability stickers in case you forget (ok, they weren't meant for you but take what you can get. I won't tell).
Spreading is fine, I flow by ear, but if I have to say 'clear' more than 3 times I'm just gonna stare at you until you realize that I stopped flowing.
I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.
Impact turns are grand. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.
I know of a Liberty debater who argues FW very well, and that's because they impact it out. This being said:
1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.
2.) Clash is the most convincing impact to me-- without it, policy debate would be Lincoln Douglas-- just two people talking at each other. Wait, am I allowed to say that? Oh well, it's in here now.
3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.
And, yeah, I'm gonna briefly discuss T here: definitely a voter. Tell me the violation, why it matters, and how it could mess up your and others' debate experience. But please, for the love of all that is holy, don't pull out 10 T violations. I'll flow the first 5 and see where it goes.
>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.
>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.
>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.
>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.
>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.
>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.
>Finally... have funsies. :^)
Onto the Fun Stuff (TM):
I love it when debaters have a sense of humor. Have fun and crack a joke every once in a while; debating/judging is exhausting, you know.
Over Quarantine, I've been binging The Crown, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Miraculous Ladybug-- do with that info what you will.
If you ask me to dap you up before or after the debate, a minor speaks boost is in your future. (this is pre-corona. a virtual dap is also acceptable.)
If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will stop the round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes extremely 'punking' the other team.
Rhetoric could be a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I could vote on it.
Raul Cepin (he/him/his)
Binghamton University '18
Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School ’13
Debated for 4 years in high school, debated in college and qualified to the NDT every year I debated. Qualified teams to the TOC.
1. I think line by line as a guideline for the structure of flowing is effective
2. K, performance all okay - debated this kind of stuff. Be clear and make sure I get it.
3. T/FW - T is good and important, so is framework. You need to defend an interpretation.
4. Tricks are a no-go
I am a first timer as debate judge. I will learn along the way.
hey! i debated PF for 4 years, competing on the texas circuit and somewhat on the national circuit my senior year. i qualified for tfa state, nsda nats, the toc, blah blah.
i'd say that i'm a typical flow judge. debate in the style that you're most comfortable with, and i'll probably be able to adapt to you :)
i'll try to make my paradigm as understandable as possible to debaters of all levels. that being said, if you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts! if you're in a hurry, just read through the bolded.
- i am a tabula rasa judge. i will walk into the round with a clean slate of mind and learn as the round progresses.
- i vote based on a tech > truth philosophy. i view debate as a game, and i expect the debaters to play the game by its rules. whatever arguments are presented to me are assumed to be true until proven otherwise. however, the more absurd an argument is to me, the less subconsciously inclined i am to give credence to it.
- i will intervene as minimally as possible. a response made to an argument, even if it is unresponsive, will always flow through for me if it is implicated. however, my threshold for responses will be low; telling me it's unresponsive is enough for me to not evaluate it. i will also inevitably intervene a tiny bit if i need to make a decision when there isn't a clear path to the ballot for me on either side (it's your job to prevent this from happening, anyway).
- speed is fine, but only if the enunciations are clear. please keep in mind that i am no machine. the quicker you speak, the more you risk me misflowing something or missing it entirely. i would prefer a more comprehensive and moderate speed debate, and your speaker points will reflect this!
- i will not evaluate progressive arguments such as theory, kritiks, tricks, etc. i was more of a traditional substance debater and never properly learned the inner workings of these types of arguments, so please don't read them. as Jacqueline Wei puts it, "Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible." if there is any true abuse in the round, warrant out in a speech why they are abusive and why i should drop them. i'll be receptive to it, because i think you can check back abuse without reading shells and making the round exclusive.
- i do not think defense is sticky. now that summaries are three minutes instead of two, i think it's advantageous for you to just extend defense on their argument(s) regardless of whether or not it's conceded.
- anything you want frontlined in the round has to be in the speech right after. this includes all offense and defense that is read against your case, or else it's considered conceded to me. your frontlines don't have to be that thorough in second rebuttal, but they should most definitely be fleshed out in second summary.
- i have a high threshold for extensions. i expect warrants to be in anything that you extend, and turns should have impacts that are properly weighed if you want me to be able to vote on them. also, i think it's strategic for debaters to narrow down to one or two arguments by the end of the round. go for more if you think it's necessary, but collapsing is definitely the move. telling me that an argument has no warrant/implication/impact flows through and is an acceptable response to me. if you win your argument but extend it poorly, don't expect the best speaks.
- i hate rhetoric impacts. telling me that "poverty happens" or "war will occur" is not really contextualized enough for me to happily vote for; i will buy any clarity of impact weighing if this is the case. i would prefer numbers or statistics when it comes to impact extensions, but, of course, if you win the weighing and explain why your impact comes first, i'd still vote off of it even if it's fundamentally rhetoric.
- summary and final focus should have alignment. whatever you want me to vote for in final focus should be in the summary speech (yes, warrants and everything). it does not matter if your opponents do not address it; you still have to properly extend it. i won't vote for anything new in final focus. and yes, i can tell if you're lying. don't read new evidence in second summary either. if you do anything cheap, your speaker points will probably be hurt.
- offensive overviews in second rebuttal make me unhappy. these can probably be turned into disads or turns against your opponent's case. if you read like two or three new contentions in rebuttal and mask it as an overview, i think that's incredibly abusive. if the other team tells me this is abusive, i'll agree and cross it off my flow.
- please signpost. tell me where you are on the flow as you go, otherwise it will be very hard for me to follow you. roadmaps before your speeches are appreciated too!
- weighing helps me very much when evaluating rounds. i hold weighing in a layer above substance, but you'd still need an impact to access that layer. it isn't necessary, but it does make it easier for me to sign my ballot for you. however, please don't just throw buzzwords at me and say you outweigh on six different mechanisms. i think weighing should be properly warranted and explained as should any other argument.
- i default to utilitarianism absent a framework/weighing. i'll intervene with common sense, looking at the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
- i will call for evidence only when necessary. if debaters explicitly tell me to look at a piece of evidence, i will call for it after the round is over. if i think the legitimacy of your evidence is crucial for my decision, i will also call for it. that being said, i will base any implications made on that piece of evidence on what i read. so, if you heavily exaggerated what your article says, then that card's implications will hold less weight when i'm making my decision. if the card is completely miscut, i'm automatically dropping you and tanking your speaks. while it is somewhat interventionist if the opposing team didn't make the analysis that your evidence is misconstrued, i don't think that teams have the ability nor the obligation to check back every single piece of evidence that you read. i hold evidence ethics in a completely different sphere; if you miscut evidence, you are a cheater in the game of debate.
- i presume the team that lost the coin flip when i do not see any offense coming from either team by the end of the round. my friend Yukiho once explained this to me, and i thought it made a lot of sense. the team that loses the coin toss begins the round with a structural disadvantage and are thus rewarded with the default win in this scenario. i used to presume first speaking team, but i feel like most teams that lose the toss end up speaking first anyway. if the team that won chooses a side, then they are receiving an advantage by securing their preferred side. feel free to warrant out another way i should presume, though.
- i don't flow crossfires. however, i think crossfires are such an underrated aspect of debate rounds. cross was my favorite speech as a debater, and i will appreciate an interesting discussion. crossfire is also binding, which means that anything you say must be upheld for the rest of the round. feel free to be funny or cuss, as long as you aren't being rude or derogatory in any way. seriously. cross shouldn't be a shouting contest.
- speaker points reflect your speaking style and strategy. to get good speaks from me, i expect strategic decisions that make the round very clean and organized. i was a very narrative-heavy debater, so if you guys paint a very clear picture for me, you will be rewarded! (also +0.5 speaks if you bring me food)
- flex prep and open crossfires are fine. as long as both teams agree to it, feel free to have everyone speak during cross or take prep time to ask each other questions.
- please read content/trigger warnings if you plan on making arguments pertaining to sensitive issues. debate should be a safe space for everyone! at the very least, people deserve to be prepared for the discussion before the debate begins. if you're going to be reading arguments like that, please be prepared to drop it or replace it with something else in the case that your opponents are uncomfortable with it.
- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. if you are offensive or derogatory in any way, i will down you and nuke your speaks. even if you are the best debater in the world, some things are more important than a high school activity.
- postround me if you want. i don't think you should do this to a judge unless they explicitly say it's fine in their paradigm; it's important to understand that no judge wants to make the wrong decision. but, for me, it's fine if you disagree with some aspects of my decision. i'll discuss it out with you as long as i'm not in a hurry.
most importantly, be sure to have fun! if both teams agree to it, i am totally down to judge the round with different conditions. you want me to be a lay judge? i got you. i also don't care what you wear as long as you're comfortable! just don't shake my hand please.
if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts
Jackson Crumpler (He/Him)
Cabot High School
Hello! I'm currently a sophomore at Cabot High School and I have only been debating competitively for a year now, but I enjoy it so much! I ask for a smooth round, bringing your prior knowledge on debate and your usual debate style. However, if you're looking for specifics and what I prefer please read below for what I encourage, discourage, and things I am looking for in different events.
Encourage and Discourage
I, personally, am an aggressive-style debater. I enjoy clash, love rebuttal, and adore great utilization of the cross-examination and questioning periods. However, with that being said, please do not be overly aggressive to the point that it interferes with the round. Meaning, don't excessively talk over your opponent, ESPECIALLY when you asked them a question; let them answer entirely, and if you have time left, give a follow up. If you do excessively interfere: talk over, yell, other mean stuff, etc; you get a big fat L! Do you really want to take that L? Instead, show your aggressive-style in the form of confidence and composure: responding to the oppositions points thoroughly with great evidence and reasoning. Turn them so much that they get sick.
Also, please announce your contentions, warrants, and impacts when speaking. Make sure your impacts weigh more heavily in magnitude than the other side, preferably with numerical data. More so, please announce your turns and what contention you are turning when speaking. It helps with my flow, allows me to make a better ruling, and makes your case look better prepared. I'm okay with spreading, but make sure your argument isn't being lost with it, slow down at the important parts, it helps with speaker points.
Contain control of the round: make a good weigher and good voting issues, otherwise you leave me with a more liberal interpretation of the round, could hurt you could help you, but in doing weighing and voters it shows to me a better developed case.
Tech>Truth, please be sure to sign post.
Any homophobia, transphobia, racism, xenophobia will result in an automatic lost. More so, disrespect towards your opponent dramatically hurt speaker points, but I am willing to be more lenient of your reduction if you apologize after the round (depending on how rude you were) because I understand you can sometimes get lost in the heat of the moment.
Make sure I remember you, don't fall into the background. Continually ask great, RELEVANT questions to ensure I don't lose you and have good parliamentary procedure. I love rebuttal type speeches at the end of the bill/resolution, so if you give a good one you're definitely high in my ranks. Show great speaking skills in your speeches and that you're knowledgeable on the subject you're debating, don't give a speech just to get a speech in. Make sure when people are questioning you that you remain confident in your answers, repeat lines in your speeches if you already covered the question they're asking. When you are questioning other speakers, don't continually speak over them.
Constructives should have well established contentions, with great impacts. I prefer a weighing-mechanism for the round that is touched on at the beginning, but I don't necessarily need definitions if they are not needed, as they cut into valuable time that could be spent building your case with contentions. Spreading is fine, but I prefer it less in constructives because this is when you should be developing a good case, and any missed points interfere with the nature of debate.
Rebuttals should be made with signpost where you say which contention you are responding with, helps with my flowing of the round. I am okay with spreading in rebuttals. Make sure not to drop any arguments, but please be considerate of well-developed turns, don't start responding to an argument when you have only twenty seconds left because you will most likely not include enough rationale and warrant in your turn. Go over the first cross-examination period if you can.
Summaries should incorporate both a rebuilding of your own case, where you highlight your most valuable contentions and how they have failed to refute said contentions. The rest of the time is where YOU MAKE SURE to weigh the impacts of both sides, and how your side has greater impacts.
The Final Focus should incorporate the voters and the final weigh of the round, why the scale is on your side. Preferably three voters which deal with the structure of the round: dropped points, impacts, etc;. This is where speaker points can lean towards your favor if you end with a good analogy or something.
Don't know much about this event, so refer to my preference on constructives and rebuttals in public forum. Please have great questions during the cross-examination period, and also signpost.
Anyways, have a good round. Don't be too stressed or nervous, you got this!
Matthew Cupich. email@example.com
* 3 years: Public Forum debate competitor for William P. Clements High School. (Texas & National Circuits)
* 2 years: Foreign Extemporaneous competitor for '' '' '' '' (Texas Circuit)
* 1 year: coaching middle school Public Forum debaters at Fort Settlement Middle School.
- Be respectful and kind.
- Don't add me to the email chain until it is necessary.
- Speak at a slow to moderate pace (6/10 speed). I don't like fast mumbling because I can't understand what you are saying (Especially on zoom, this is difficult).
- Evidence ethics are important: Extend cards clearly through summary and final focus (Public Forum). I don't like to see misconstrued or unclear evidence. Now your sources.
- Crossfires are important: ask meaningful questions that have strategic value (Public Forum)
- Speak clearly and confidently. (Slow & clear > Fast & messy)
- Signpost: explain where you are debating on the flow (Public Forum).
- Debate is like chess: arguments are like chess pieces and strategy is important.
- Theory is good. However, I do not have any in-round experience with theory debate.
If you would like know more, feel free to ask me questions before the round starts. Thank you.
jw patterson update (10/21):
Things I'm going to start dropping your speaks by .1 for every infraction - 1. counting down before your speeches 2. calling me judge/ms. curry/any formality - please just call me Ausha or don't refer to me lmao (asking "judge ready?" is okay)
^if you do this i'll know either a. you didn't read my paradigm (bad) or b. did read my paradigm and just aren't respecting it (also bad)
Hi! I'm Ausha (they/them)
I'm a current freshman at American University majoring in a mix of poli sci/econ, probably going to do some form of debate here too. In high school I did 2 years of policy and 2 years of LD, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and am the current WA state LD champion.
Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.firstname.lastname@example.org
tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.
Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20.
Conflicts: Mount Vernon (WA)
1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !
2. disclosure - i'm unlike a lot of other circuit judges in the sense that I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, impact, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it (interlake i am looking @ u)
3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. I'm most versed in line by line debate so I'll probs know if you miss something <3 even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it
4. speed - I'm pretty okay, I'll max out at maybe 400 wpm? I haven't heard top level policy speed in a while so tbh I couldn't tell ya. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already)
5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. I won't make you stake the round on it but that also means that you'll need to respect everyone's time and not just make accusations for fun. or just run theory and it'll work better for all of us
6. Flowing - I'll probably be flowing on paper most rounds so don't be discouraged if I look down, i'm not on my phone. Also this means you should be very very organized with good sign posting bc i don't want to waste ink or paper by messing up
7. Judging history - it looks like i've judged only like 10 rounds but it's only bc WA used a lot of paper ballots prior to covid lmao i promise i'm not just going in blind
Argument Specific -
tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill
t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I default competing interps and I don't have any other glaring predispositions against standards, but I think the aff can win well nuanced reasonability. Neg, PLEASE have a tva that solves the aff!! Otherwise I will def be compelled by aff's "edu outweighs" args. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size, but I think if it goes straight conceded i will vote on it unhappily.
LD specific: I grant affs a lot of leeway in LD specifically for 1ar theory, just say "Ausha, I read your paradigm" and move on with your shell. I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily
Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs
(note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)
larp (LD) - probably where I'm most comfortable judging. know what the aff plan does, neg call them out if their solvency ev doesn't say what their plan is <3 I'll vote on 0.000001% risk if that's how the debaters want to frame the round but I also like super niche ptx DAs with an advantage CP if that's how you want to debate.
phil (LD) - explain it well, but I'm sure that if your opponent doesn't understand it then I won't either. I've never ran a phil case, but I have won against them, so just let me know how to evaluate it in terms of the round in the final rebuttals. I have a general knowledge of how most of them function independently but if both of you are running competing frameworks/ideologies, I'll need a lot of comparative work
CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it), i think most aff ev will probably have an advantage cp lying around in it. i won't auto vote u down if you don't have evidence but it'll probably be a lot easier for the aff to win their case solves better. i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.
DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line. aff should probably make some sort of aff outweighs/solves/doesn't link arg in the 2ac (or 1ar in LD) for sure.
ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. If you're reading a K on the neg and the aff knows your lit better? EMBARRASSING! I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times
k affs - I like these, i've ran a couple. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc so i have choices and so do you, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!
performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these
education =/= fairness - I think that both of these impacts have separate strats/internal links that need to happen in the speech and you shouldn't just use them as buzzwords in an overview ie i need something about setting a precedent for fairness vs something about portable skills for education
I think i tend to give relatively high speaks, especially at the novice level, averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: jokes, FUNNY** memes at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and being respectful to your opponent.
if i'm judging you on the WA local circuit i'll give you a 30 if the first cx question is "how is your day"
Just let me know if you have any other specific questions you need answered before round :)
Experience: I am a senior at the University of Iowa where I study political science, international affairs, and philosophy. I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I have experience and working knowledge with all speech and debate events. I have previously coached in Des Moines, Iowa, and for NSDA China. I am currently unaffiliated with any team, school, or individual competitors.
PF: I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after the warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.
- If at all possible, I would like to start rounds early. I understand that's not always possible or teams need to prep, so I'm just appreciative if we do start early. No problem if you need to take your time though.
- While in evidence exchange, I expect all students to have their hands on screen and mics unmuted to ensure that time is not used for prep.
- Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.
- FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing. Impact calc within every speech is most persuasive.
- Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.
TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.
LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. On the rare occasion, I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I'm almost always good with speed. I prefer competitors disclose to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points.
Blue Valley Southwest: 2015-2018
Liberty University: 2019-2022
Email for the chain: email@example.com
1. I am now a stock issues judge. The stock issues are as follows: Inherency, Solvency, Harms, Disads and Topicality. Still debating whether or not the 1AC needs to present Topicality.
1. Ignore my facial expressions.
2. Much better for policy than the K.
K on the Neg
1. Short of technical concessions, the Aff always gets to weigh the 1AC.
2. I don't understand high theory.
3. Links should be to the plan.
4. This is NOT a stock issue. BEWARE!
K on the Aff
1. Defend a material change from the status quo.
2. We Meets/Counter-interps are your friend.
3. These AFFs may not meet the Inherency, Solvency, or Topicality stock issues.
1. Answer case offense.
2. Topic education and idea-testing arguments are fine, but fairness is the clearest path to offense.
3. I think of TVAs the way I think of counterplans; they don't necessarily have to solve the whole Aff, but your impacts proper (fairness, education, etc.) must outweigh any solvency deficits/DAs to the TVA.
1. Not my favorite debate to watch, but that won't reflect in the speaker points.
2. Reasonability is cringe.
3. Offense should be comparative. I really enjoy impacts about the direction of research for the topic (limits and precision).
4. TVAs are underutilized.
5. Caselists are great. I like having a clear picture of the topic.
1. CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. I lean Aff on Perm do the CP in process debates.
2. CP amendments are okay against new affs and add-ons. Not a big fan otherwise.
3. Perm do both explanations can be clarified in the 1AR, but not the 2AR.
4. This is NOT a stock issue. BEWARE!
2. Turns-case args should be couched in the internal links of the DA.
3. Good 1NRs line up their speech with the 2AC (impact o/v is the exception).
4. 1NR should card dump if you have the goods.
1. Go a bit slower.
2. Conditionality is good, but performative contradictions are bad. Couch condo bad args through the lens of perf con.
3. Everything should be a reason to reject the team. Why artificially limit the impact of your argument?
Things I've noticed about myself as a judge
1. I highly value explanation of impacts/scenarios/links/etc. This is especially true for the rebuttals.
2. I don't love reading evidence. If you think the debate should be won/lost on evidence, make that known.
3. Impact turn debates are by far my favorite rounds to watch.
4. I am prone to confusion. Try to keep strategies simple and to the point.
5. Long deliberation, quick rfd explanation kinda judge.
1. Good for spark/dedev/co2 good.
2. I will flow/evaluate the arguments made in the debate and totally ignore arguments that tell me to disregard the other team. This includes arguments along the lines of "don't flow the debate". Both (I presume) teams have worked hard to produce their evidence, arguments, and strategies. It would be immoral for me to waste you or your opponents' time.
1. Arguments in the final focus must exist in the summary.
2. I care about line-by-line more than some judges. Meta framing is not a substitute for clash.
3. I'm curious about how the K would play out in an activity where the topic is yes/no to the rez. Framework would also be strange; is it the first speaker who sets the tone for K v. Framework, or is it based on being Pro or Con? I will develop a concrete opinion after judging a few of these debates. *update: nobody has gone for a K in front of me yet. Waiting for the day, lol.*
4. Signposting will get you very far very quickly.
5. I've noticed that some teams do not read evidence in rebuttal - that seems bad, but nobody tells me why.
6. Some teams have expressed that FF and Summaries do not need to extend arguments or do line-by-line. If that philosophy applies to you, then I should not be your judge.
7. I very rarely evaluate arguments from Summary when making my decision. Only exception is to ensure Summary and FF are consistent (i.e. no new FF arguments).
8. Teams that email evidence/speech docs get a .5 speaker point boost.
1. Be polite and don't be offensive. You will lose for discriminatory language or policy.
2. I think death/suffering good arguments are unpersuasive. Arguments about inevitable death/suffering are unimportant.
3. Mark cards during the speech.
I am open to all arguments as long as there is a good link chain that is well defended. If you present an off the wall argument and defend it well, I will probably consider it heavily. Treat me as a lay judge. There must be well flushed out impacts for me to consider. These impacts must be brought up in the constructives or they will not be weighed. Do not use any abusive arguments.
Use good evidence. Don't quote blogs or shady journalists. I will ask for cards if I believe you are reading me crap. I judge quality over quantity. Explain why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents.
IF you are going to read fast, read your tags slow and clear, then you can go as fast as you want. Be sure to be clear. If I can't understand you, I will put my pen down, thus signalling you've lost me. However, as long as you read tags clearly, I won't doc speaks.
Weighing is the most important part of PF. Use your impact calculus to explain why your argument should be voted on.
Be sure to compare values and value criterion and explain why I should favor yours over your opponents. Also, explain why your case ties into your values.
Speak clearly. Act like you actually care and that you aren't just trying to get another speech in. At least try to act like you know what you're talking about. Don't just spew B.S. trying to gain an emotional response.
I am a very lay judge, so please speak legibly and do not spread. One main thing that I look for is the use of logic in your arguments. I know that debate is very heavily reliant on evidence and cards, but if you can connect those cards to your argument or refute arguments without solely using cards, I will favor your side.
Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows this general framework:
Policy, LD: In terms of theory, K, I am very indifferent about running those. You can run whatever type of arguments you want to, just be sure that I am able to connect the logic of the arguments together. At the end of the day, I am a flow judge. For me, clear impacts, clear warrants will win the round regardless of the type of arguments.
Parli: I've competed in parli for 2 years at the collegiate level and I think the biggest problem with many people who do parli is the impacts. To start, if it is a policy round, please be very clear about the plan. I.E: Have a date, agency, etc. For definitions, please only explain meaningful and useful definitions. Don't define words like "should" or "to". Only define a word that has a meaningful part of the round. Contention wise, I really want to stress impacts. Yes, have good warrants, have good links, but flow wise its hard to vote for somebody who does not prove how a plan is effective. Once again, indifferent to K's, theory, etc. Just be clear.
Speed for ALL Debates: Please try your best not to spread. I don't feel that as a judge I should have to work to be able to listen to arguments. As a competitor, its your role to make sure I understand the arguments. I don't hear, I don't flow. If you are going too fast, I will say clear to let you know.
Congress: Congress was always something I enjoyed. With that being said, the only 2 things I have to say about congress is that yes, presentation matters, a lot. But at the end of the day, it is debate. Please display clear, strong arguments with great impacts, while at the same time giving me the sense of formality that you actually care for the people you represent. Congress is partially about convincing me you are right and why I should believe your advocacy and partially about having the best arguments in the round. Second, please during cross-examination, limit the "Senator don't you agree that...........". These arguments don't add anything to the round and just take up other people's time to question. That being said, just remember to not go overboard. You're acting.
I am a freshman attending the University of California, Berkeley. I have had overall debate experience for nearly seven years. I competed in Parliamentary debate during three of my four years of high school, and also competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate at the middle school and high school freshman year level.
Things I look for:
1. What I look for most is which team can uphold the best the criterion of the round (it is also known as the weighing mechanism or judging mechanism). All of your overall arguments, evidence, links, and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion.
2. I place a bit more emphasis on the framework debate than some other judges. Don't bring up framework debate and then simply drop it after one exchange. I believe that framework and your arguments need to be consistent.
3. In your final rebuttal speeches, have clear-cut voting issues. It helps to number them out for me. It keeps me organized and able to flow.
Things I discourage:
1. IMPORTANT: DO NOT SPREAD. I understand that you feel the need to jam-pack information to try to win the most arguments, etc. Trust me - you'll be at a severe disadvantage. I'm not going to say you will automatically lose if you do, but it'll be really hard. I cannot understand debaters who spread. At the beginning of the round, I may even show an example of what I consider unacceptable in terms of spreading. I cannot flow and follow along if I cannot understand you. In the event that you are speaking too fast, I may either: a) stop writing and look up, b) look extremely confused, and/or c) say "clear". Any one of those cues you see and/or hear, it is your responsibility to adjust your speaking. I can only judge the round based on what I can flow.
2. Don't drop major arguments. I understand that styles are very different from where I competed in Parliamentary (Orange County) than other areas, and that some different styles actually encourage dropped arguments. It's one thing to concede and drop a piece of evidence, a link, or even an impact (although a dropped impact will probably hurt you more than the former two). It's another thing to drop entire arguments. Also, if a team does drop an argument, point it out! Don't just leave it abandoned on my flow.
Otherwise, just have fun. It's a learning experience, and you're here to learn over anything.
I've been competing in Debate for the last four years. I have competed in congress, extemp, oo, hi, and public forum. This year I have been competing on the national and local circuit, so I know how to use the online debate format.
Also, I have done no research on the topic. Please ask me any questions you have before round, I promise I'm nice. :)
I am a typical flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If say you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.
If you have any questions, or using an email chain add me, firstname.lastname@example.org
- the faster you speak, the higher chance I will miss something
- I and your opponents can say "speed" at any time and you should slow down, if you don't your speaker points will reflect that
- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.
- First summary only has to extend defense if it is front-lined in second rebuttal.
- Arguments that you want me to evaluate should be extended with a warrant and impact in summary and final focus.
- Don't extend through ink.
- Please roadmap/signpost.
- Collapse; it is unstrategic to go for everything in final focus.
- If your rebuttal "overview" is a hidden contention I will not evaluate it.
- do NOT make me do your dirty work, I will not appreciate it...
- Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense.
- don't just throw words out (ie. scope, magnitude) EXPLAIN why I should be preferring you
- I will only give you lower than 25 speaks if you do something TERRIBLE
- +.5 points if you make me genuinely laugh
- I do take the way you speak and hold yourself into account for speaks
Notes on Progressive Arguments:
- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or frivolous Theory, I will become annoyed and drop you. We both know that there are better debate venues for this.
- Arguments with critical and/or pre-fiat impacts not in K format can be ok, just make sure to give your opponents a meaningful route to the ballot.
- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments made using simple formats and weighing mechanisms. No to speaker point and disclosure theory.
- I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, Islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email. (one very important reason for this is because I have experienced it in rounds and the judges did nothing about it until the round is over.)
- Have fun!
I do policy, but since I'm probably going to be judging PF:
-Obviously, racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of discrimination with result in an automatic loss and zero speaks
-Tech > truth--generally, dropped arguments are true arguments, as long as you can explain them and why they are important
-I'm fine with speed, as long as it's not spreading
-Make sure to weigh your impacts and explain why they are a priority (if possible, explain why your impacts make those of your opponents inevitable or worse)
-Having a framework argument as to how I should evaluate the round is definitely a good idea
-Good case turns are probably some of the best types of arguments--these can also help in explaining why your impacts outweigh
-Try to explain your arguments as much as possible instead of just restating them
-Don't go for everything in the final focus, just go in-depth on a few important arguments
-Everything that's going to be extended into the final focus should be in the summary
-I honestly don't have a problem with open crossfire even when it's not grand cross, as long as the ones who are supposed to be asking questions are the main people involved
-Make sure you're letting your opponents actually ask/answer questions in crossfire
-Make sure to do lbl and engage with your opponent's arguments
-Explain why dropped arguments matter
-Especially if both sides have the same impact, do evidence comparison--explain why their cards don't say what they claim for them to, or why their sources being old makes them unreliable
-Having cards is important, but having smart analytics will definitely get you higher speaks--so will making smart concessions
As for things such as Ks, counterplans, etc., I'm not entirely sure how these work in PF. Criticizing the resolution on the negative is probably fine and could actually be quite interesting. Disadvantages could probably also be interesting, but I think plans/counterplans can be unpredictable. If you run a plan or counterplan, I won't immediately vote you down and might evaluate it, but I could definitely be convinced if the opposing team claimed for this to be unfair (the debate could go either way though). I do like arguments with extinction impacts, so if you happen to have one, then by all means run it.
Hey guys! My name is Hrishi (pronounced Rishi). I competed in Public-Forum Debate for the past four years for Clements High School, on the Texas Circuit. I qualified to TFA state twice, so I consider myself a flow debater/judge.
Here are a few basic things to help y'all understand me as a judge.
1. Extensions are important. If you want to go for an argument it must be extended in every speech. If you drop defense or offense, I am not going to evaluate it.
2. Unless you are kicking case to go for turns/disads, Second Rebuttal has to respond to defense and turns that are read in First Rebuttal.
3. Please, please, please collapse in the second half of round. If you tell me to extend 4 diffrent contentions in Summary I will be sad, and making me cry will be bad for your speaks.
4. Don't misconstrue evidence, or I will tank your speaks. Please share evidence in a timely manner. (If it takes an abnormal amount of time to find something, it will be dropped from the round)
5. Weighing is important but make sure you do it well. Don't just shout mechanisms at me without explaining the warranting behind them
6. I'm not familiar with progressive args, so run them at your own risk. I never ran progressive args while I was competing, so if that's someone you want evaluating your argument then have fun I guess.
1. Debate is a game. Even if I know something is factually untrue, if it isn't contested in round I will believe it to be true.
2. I am a PF debater at heart, I am not a fan of spreading. If you are speaking too fast I'll say clear once, and then its up to you.
3. If the debate is a wash (again this will make me sad, don't make me sad) I will presume Status Quo
4. Don't be a jerk. If you are sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or racist then I'll drop your team.
5. It's okay to match energy in round, just try to stay civil and respectful towards everyone.
6. If you make me laugh in round (with a funny contention tag or a joke in your speech) I'll increase your speaks by .5
If you have any other questions feel free to email me at email@example.com, or just ask me before the round begins.
TLDR: Don't make me cry, it will be bad for everyone
Good luck with y'alls rounds!
*Online: Unless a tournament prefers a specific method, I prefer e-mail chains. I'll drop my e-mail to be included when I'm in your call. I am almost always 5-10 minutes early, unless I'm judging flights, in which case I'll do my best.
Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out and let you restart from the point connectivity becomes an issue. I'll do my best on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a policy (ex. if it takes 15 minutes to reconnect, that's a forfeit), I'll go by those.
Septober/NATO: If I have to listen to Russia nuke war scenarios for two months straight, please, please compare your reasons on both sides why I prefer your evidence/analysis/what-have-you. I need it painstakingly clear. Please.
Background: 3 yrs of college traditional policy (Stock/CPs/T, nothing cool) & some parli. I coach PF. Pronouns are she/her.
I believe paraphrasing will just never be as honest as reading cut cards, so I'll try to incentivize better norms: if you don't paraphrase, tell me sometime in the round: "all evidence we introduced was in cards, boost our speaks" and I will by .5. To clarify - if the 1st speaker doesn't paraphrase in constructive, the .5 boost goes to the first speaker. If the 2nd speaker doesn't paraphrase new cards read in rebuttal, it's .5 for them.
Disclosure is probably good because evidence ethics in PF are awful, but I'm more likely to reward you (in speaks) for doing it than drop a team that doesn't, particularly if that team is a small school.
If it's in final focus, it better be in summary. Signpost well.
Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Dumping as many blippy, unwarranted responses as you can on the flow to see which one your opponents forget to cover and try to exploit in the back half = overrated, not fun, will probably annoy me.
I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."
I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize mitigating structural violence," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.
All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).
I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP/anything that appeals more to my very traditional policy background. I'm a fan of straightforward plan/counterplan debates. The more progressive, the more you should either A) strike me if possible (I want to be fair to you), or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you.
If it's the first round of the morning, the coffee hasn't kicked in yet, skip everything above (other than the "this is online debate please go slow," go even slower now) - hello, I'm your lay judge this round, please debate accordingly.
Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out. I've seen teams use Google Forms.
Compare warrants + tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.
Don't post-round, thanks.
Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. I gave two 30s last season and one was for the nicest debater I've ever come across.
If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I debated Public Forum for 5 years. I debated for 2 years at Lambert High School nationally. I've judged Parli and Public Forum previously. I'm currently an incoming freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.
- I'm tech>truth. I care more about warranting. However, if I see you say something faulty, and your opponent doesn't refute it, I won't mark you down for it. I will just tell you after round.
- Please sign-post! Especially through the second half of the round.
- Front lining in the second rebuttal is encouraged but not required.
- Give me voting issues with warrant and impact in the Summary and Final Focus. With the 3 minute summaries, I expect defense to be extended in first summary. I also expect you to weigh, especially in the final focus.
- I am not as familiar with the theory, but I am open to it as long as it's not abusive.
- I'm good with speed, as long as you are not doing policy-level spreading.
- I'm ok with paraphrasing as long it's not way off the mark. I won't usually call for cards unless you ask me to or if I am going to base my decision off of it.
Let me know if there is any way I can accommodate you in the round. Feel free to ask me any questions. You can also email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm a current high school debater.
1. I'm okay with some speed, but not spreading
2. Please don't run critiques (Ks), or theory shells. It's irrelevant.
3. I want to see roadmaps and signposting (tell me if something is from a rebuttal or contention 1)
4. You have to tell me how to vote. If both sides disagree on how I should vote, I expect arguments that sway me toward your framework.
5. Emphasize impacts
6. Ultimately, I will vote for whichever side persuades me best. Good luck.
Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm
Only send speech docs to email@example.com
ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.
About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I currently teach and coach at Greenhill School. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.
Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.
Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.
Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.
Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!
Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.
- Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.
Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.
General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.
Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.
Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.
Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.
I believe that speech and debate serves as a way to learn effective communication skills in addition to argumentation and research skills. If you are talking so fast that communication is lost then you have done the event a disservice. If I can’t hear it I can’t flow it. Just having more evidence doesn’t mean that you have won the round. Impact analysis is imperative to any case. DON'T SPREAD!!!
Being professional in the round will earn you higher speaking points. Yelling or being disrespectful will result in low speaks.
LD: I am okay with K's and counterplans.
Please make sure that all you have evidence you use in the round. If your opponent asks for it please provide it promptly. I will only ask to see it if there is an issue raised.
Cabot High School
Mainly a Congress Debater but has PF experience
When looking at debates, I love clash. I believe that one of the main focuses of debate is a good clash, that way you see an actual debate going on. This can go for both Congress and PF.
When debating, always make sure that your arguments are clear and go down line by line, that way I can flow easier which will help me judge your round better. If your impacts are major to your case, make them seem important. If the number of cards is major to your case, make them seem important. I’d hate to look past them.
When looking at speaks, if you can speak loud and proud and add emphasis to your speaking, then you're almost guaranteed good speaks. I am not a fan of robotic, blunt-speaking because I will zone out real fast.
I also have zero tolerance for disrespect. In some instances, you can be aggressive to your opponent, however, if you step over the line and insult or show disrespect to them in any way, it will reflect on your speaks. While I know debate can get loud, it also needs to be civil.
If Congress was eradicated from existence, then my go-to would be PF. I enjoy PF a lot, mainly because it makes us discuss topics that you wouldn’t usually talk about. That being said, please be sure to provide definitions and frameworks within your case. Not only does it inform me and others about the topic, but your framework helps me decide on who I should vote for, depending on which side shows that they fit the framework better. That means that you should always emphasize your impacts within the debate. I can agree that framework is in no way the most important, and please do not have a framework debate, but it’d be nice to have it included. In summary, you should always weigh out your impacts and go over the arguments that were spoken throughout the debate. The final Focus should be mainly on voters, that way I can vote more effectively.
When it comes to cx, as I have said before, the clash is key. That being said, I mainly prefer open cross, that way there’s more possibility of the clash. You don’t have to do an open clash, but it’s preferable.
Please do not spread either. Not only is that disrespectful to your opponents, but I can’t flow, meaning I can’t judge.
There are not many paradigms for Congress I have, as my paradigms most closely follow PF, but all I ask for congress is to have clear points within your speech and be sure to speak well. And please, for the love of anything religious, don't repeat arguments. I don't want to fall asleep during your session.
Former policy debater, recent PF coach and judge, new policy coach and judge. Email chains to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Overview - 1) Because I haven't judged meaningful policy rounds in a while (as of Jack Howe 2021), I'm not really familiar with modern off-case arguments; 2) That said, run what you want to run and makes you happy; 3) I'm open to most arguments, but due to lack of familiarity with modern arguments (esp. arguments that address the superstructure of debate or the phenomenology of discourse) I need the debaters to execute the arguments completely, i.e., to an RFD...I thank you now; 4) I have no redlines regarding arguments except for ones based on bigotry, mostly b/c you have to listen to the argument before judging it; 5) I'm highly skeptical of conspiracy theories b/c they're stupid and dangerous, and I can be easily persuaded to ignore them or give completely executed turns; 6) Evidence is central to policy debate b/c evidence is central to probability and quantification; 7) Credibility of evidence determines the likelihood of outcomes or the accuracy of the impact; 8) I prefer debaters "weigh" throughout their speech, on the argument being weighed, not as a distinct section of their speech (e.g., "Now I will weigh the debate..."); 9) I love how policy debate has evolved, it's on me if I can't follow; 10) Be kind to your opponents, treat their arguments with respect; 11) I am more familiar with Public Forum, ~300 rounds judged since May 2020.
Policy specifics - 1) Having debated in college around the time the Macintosh was launched, I know my way around pen and paper, I flow well; 2) Talk as fast as you like; 3) I prefer a policy debate - H2O is such an important and interesting issue - to a K or theory debate, but the debate isn't about the judge; 4) I know H2O; 5) Conditionality OK, but disads to CPs are sticky; 6) Offense and defense interact at link and impact levels, job of debaters is to analyze interaction to RFD (e.g., explanation of pre-reqs, timing, relative brinks and uniqueness, internal link chains, scenario velocity, etc.); 7) Yes to topicality; 8) Plans/CPs should have plans with specific actions or vision/mission, or persuasive argument why plans/CPs should not; 9) Minimize paraphrasing, NO CLIPPING; 10) I decide based on flow what arguments are new when the argument affects my decision, irrespective of whether it's pointed out, but it's a good idea to point it out when it happens on an important argument.
PF specifics - 1) I vote on what debaters put on my flow; 2) Evidence is critical, minimize paraphrasing and cherry-picking <10% of the words in a card, ask for and refer to evidence by source/year and synopsis of content of evidence; 3) Apply frameworks/decision rules/voters where they are probative, not only in overview where framework is presented; 4) Whether or not 2nd Rebuttal frontlines is a strategic choice not a requirements, not frontlining puts more pressure on 2nd Summary but enables better defense + possibility of turning defense to offense w/turns; 5) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh", explain why your impact scenario is more probable/faster developing/has larger terminal impact/precludes opponent's offense/happens before opponent's offense; 6) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked is critical to weighing likelihood of Russia lashing out when confronted with NATO military buildup in the Baltics; 7) Talk as fast as you want, be clear, don't talk as fast as you can and leave 30 seconds on your Constructive or Rebuttal; 8) No new link or impact arguments in Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Summary can cover w/o frontlining, I decide what's new; 9) Dropped arguments still need to be pointed out as dropped, implication of dropped argument must be explained; 10) Ask for cards immediately after the speech, burden is on team providing cards to provide the request cards quickly, debaters shouldn't prep while cards are being delivered but the best enforcement is to provide the requested cards quickly, if you ask for cards I expect that you will read them and incorporate specific arguments against the requested cards, provide source/date for requested cards; 11) Be nice to one another, have fun.
Arkansas State University - Jonesboro
Cabot High School Alumni
Mainly a PF/Congress Debater
tech > truth (in most cases)
hey guys! just a quick introduction- i’ve done multiple types of debate, barring LD, but i focus on PF and congress. I’m a recent grad from cabot high school where i was varsity pf captain and had competed in debate since freshman year. For the most part, you guys just do what you feel necessary within the round & everything will be groovy. If you want specifics, read below under the events.
I don't have a problem with aggressive, loud spoken debaters. I tend to be "aggressive" when arguing myself. BUT, always be respectful to everyone in the round. You don't need to talk over each other in cross. I love some good clash, but both teams yelling at each other doesn't impress me in the least.
For the most part I’m a flow judge, but I’m not going to flow the round for you. You tell me what you want on my flow and that’s what’ll be on the paper. ex: if you want me to cross-apply your answers, tell me. Im not here to assume.
Impact your arguments out -- make sure to weigh them against your opponents impact.
You should have a clear line by line. Reference cards if I need to pay attention to them.
Make sure to point out link/case turns.
speed is fine, but make sure it’s appropriate for the event.
i am tech> truth for the most part, but i will take a good analytic over a bogus piece of evidence that lacks credibility.
Definitely give me voters & weighing. Otherwise, you leave it completely open for me to interpret what to vote off of - and that might end up in your favor & it might not.
Don't be rude, be respectful to judges/teammates/opponents/spectators. We're all here to have fun. If you're rude, disrespectful, or anything along those lines - your speaks will reflect that.
***If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or anything else along those lines within the round- it will result in an auto loss with embarrassingly low speaks and I will be contacting your coach and tab. Any disrespectfulness within the round will not be tolerated
Please check for your opponents pronouns before the round- and if they point them out, make sure to address them appropriately.
I enjoy good, fun PF debates almost as much as I love Dr. Pepper. I'll judge on whatever you want - you guys just do what you think is best. I really don't care about framework, I don't think it's that necessary but if you have one then okay. If you have one, make sure to tie your arguments back to it and use it throughout the round. Don't say definitions just for the heck of it, if it's not needed - its just taking up your speech time. Stock arguments are fine, but if you can give me a unique case that makes sense- it makes the round a lot more interesting. Again, make sure to line by line and point out things you want me to put on my flow. Extend arguments throughout the debate, make sure to weigh impacts. Summary should be the point where you articulate the most important arguments and start getting into some serious weighing. Final Focus should be voters and some final weighing.
If there are any conflicts with evidence, I'll call for the card. It shouldn't take you ten minutes to find it. You need evidence to prove what your saying, but keep in mind that analytics are pretty powerful too.
I did policy for a year, so I understand the basics of it. My input on that is to run what you think you can do the best at. It’s been a hot minute since i’ve done policy, so bear with me. If you’re wanting some all knowing policy god, it’s probably best that you strike me as a judge if you can.
I want to be on the email chain -- email@example.com
I've never competed in LD, but I've seen rounds. I don't have a preference of traditional or progressive. If I end up judging you, its up to you what you decide to do. While I haven’t done LD, i’m definitely not oblivious to how it works- so ultimately just do whatever you’re comfortable with & what you think is best.... This ones kinda vague, so if you have questions or need clarification just email
honestly, this doesn’t really need an explanation. speak well, i enjoy the use of pathos- but not excessively. i will rank you on your overall participation within the round. Make me notice you- ask questions, use parli pro, and give some dang good speeches. have fun, this is always a learning experience and if you have questions- just ask.
also- i’m a firm believer that anyone breaking should be a well rounded delegate- by this i mean that they’ve been active and prominent within the session - asking questions, using parli pro, giving speeches. Also while quality > quantity is definitely true, don’t think you can just give one speech and be done because more than likely, that’s not going to earn you points in my book.
Everyone starts @ 28.5. I see this as “average” and your speaks will go up or down from there. Don’t expect a 30 from me unless you are truly an exceptionally great speaker (for your division) I will be more lax about speaks with novice debaters. Again, any harmful speaking during the round will result in embarrassingly low speaks.
I do give RFDs - you should write them down. I might disclose the round, but that depends on the round, my flows, and the tournament.
In the end, have fun. Make it fun for everyone there.
Any questions - email me firstname.lastname@example.org
i like to think i know how to flow but its unclear. so point things out to me. dropped response? tell me. uncontested (but extended)? tell me. tell me why i'm voting for you and but also why i'm not voting for your opponent. make your extended link chains clear so i don't have to go over my messy handwriting ty
make your arguments understandable to someone with basic knowledge
i'll evaluate any argument/response well explained the first time it is brought up and extended & weighed later on
please don't spread. you can send a speech doc if you plan on it but i'll probably drop your speaks and not get half of it because flowing off a document kind of ruins the whole speech aspect of debate
i don't flow cross, but it can affect your speaks. don't be overly aggressive, if you have to cut someone off do it nicely. don't try and force your opponents into conceding something here. if an important point is brought up, bring it up in a speech.
everything said in rebuttal must be responded to in the following speech or i consider it conceded. don't try to respond later/access something that was attacked. if your opponent drops attacks, tell me and extend it !
interact with your opponent's arguments directly ! everyone reads generic blocks, but if your responses interact directly with their evidence/specific link chain, i'll bump your speaks. i think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)
you should collapse! extend offense & defense, weighing needs to start here if not in rebuttal
don't bring up new things here unless frontlining
extend everything you want me to vote on ! i'll only look to things said earlier in the round if there is nothing left for me to vote off at the end (unlikely).
i really like a review on your points and attacks that still stand, but if you want to focus on weighing and voters that fine as well. everything extended should be from summary, including weighing
don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant
logical weighing (xyz will or won't happen/this is better longterm) is okay if well explained, but i prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing
if both teams end up at the same impact, i have to look to the stronger/best defended link chain. but in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts
do not! weigh on arguments you have no access to
please don't run these, i will literally understand 0.001% of it. theory, disads, shells, k's, counterplans, tricks, etc. nope. substance >> but if you run it anyways i wont flow/evaluate especially if your opponents are novices, expect speaks at 25
preflow before the round
give me the order before speeches
i'll try to disclose every round and give an oral rfd
i won't usually call for cards unless i'm told to or it's heavily weighed on. if a card i call for is misused i'll drop all arguments involving it. paraphrased cases are okay, but cut and use evidence fairly.
please ask questions/postround if you want but be nice
i'll time every speech/prep but i expect you to as well. 10+ seconds overtime=lower speaks :(
voting for you should be easy, so weigh, extend, refute, do all the things. if the round gets messy to the point where there is nothing i can vote on, i'll default first speaking team
everyone's speaks start at 28, i'll drop/raise as the round progresses
follow the paradigm!
read content warnings as needed
be respectful, nice, & overall don't take things too seriously and you'll end with high speaks
if you quote taylor swift/ariana grande and i catch it i'll give you a 30 as long as you weren't rude/don't need unnecessary amounts of improvement :)
hey everyone!! my name is neha zaheer and my pronouns are she/her. i'm a junior currently debating public forum at elkins high school. in case you need to contact me, you can either message me on facebook or email me email@example.com
-speed is fine to a certain extent (don't spread). give me a roadmap/signpost.
-speaks: i always give high speaks unless you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc..
-evidence: i won’t call for any evidence unless it sounds REALLY outlandish or you ask me to in round
-if something is dropped, you can’t pick it back up in the next speech.
-collapsing: collapsing shapes a clean flow/ballot. if you don’t collapse, it’s likely that the round will get messy. i’m not a fan of the new “quantity over quality” type of style that teams have recently started to do. i think it’s inefficient and annoying.
-crossfire: don't be rude or talk over people!! i'll pay attention, but it's not pivotal in determining whether you win or lose.
-weighing: i love comparative weighing. i prefer it in 2nd rebuttal/1st summary.
-extensions should be uniqueness, link, and impact. i don't really care if you do card names or not for case extensions, but everything else needs names.
-turns: have an impact off of the turn or there is not reason why it matters. weighing turns is also good.
-2nd rebuttal: must frontline, i prefer you collapse here, and i prefer start weighing here.
-i don't like new stuff after first summary unless it’s in second summary responding to new content in first.
-final focus should not have anything new. make sure everything is extended here or i'll have to presume.
-progressive args: i like substance debate wayyy more. i've never judged progressive arguments, so it's probably not a good idea to run them.
if you're confused or have specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before round. good luck!!