ACTAA High School March Regional
2021 — NSDA Campus, AR/US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a lay judge.
DON'T SPREAD. I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so that you get the best possible score. I know that doing these debates online has thrown extra technical difficulties into the mix, so it is more important than ever not to spread. It glitches up and I'm unable to understand what you are saying.
Signpost well so I can flow properly.
Hi, my name is Ibitayo but everyone calls me Tayo (pronounced Thai-yo), only my parents say Ibitayo. I did Forensics and Debate for four years at Bentonville West High School (2016-2020) and I’m currently a freshman in Academy of Art University. I was extemp co captain my junior year and Speaking captain my senior year in high school.I did a wide array of events from HI to Extemp to BQ to Congressional Debate. My favorite event however is definitely Congressional Debate (I’m that kid that brings their own gavel *smh) I strive for everyone to be comfortable and have fun.
Congressional Debate I love-
-When you have evidence for every single point and citing them correctly
-Addressing the other representatives appropriately (don’t be calling people by they first name in round)
-Extensive knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure
-Actually using the knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure to help the round move along
-Make points that are realistic to the current political situation. If you are going to talk about immagration you better not act like covid-19 doesn’t exist rn.
I really dislike-
-Disrespect. I expect everyone to act more like adults than the actual senate okay.
-Spreading this is congress
-Wasting time. Pointless motions, going way over time, making points on a bill/resolution and not adding any more points or evidence to the subject matter. Wasting time is not a good look for me
-Softball questions, asking questions that are not constructive and are not going to challenge anything. Not answering the question is also very annoying
Debate(PF/BQ/LD) I love-
Clash. Really utilizing the CX time to make the points stronger
Arguments that are constructive and flow really well
Being able to speak in rebuttals really confidently and really explaining why the opponents points are inferior
I really dislike-
When competitors don’t use up all of the time they have. If you have four minutes to speak, use it.
THE WORST THING YOU COULD DO IN ANY DEBATE STYLE:
If you are speaking on the behalf of another group of people (another race, religion, gender, ect.)and you don't have evidence supporting that, my respect drops immediately. I would rather the evidence be from someone that is actually of that group as well. There have been so many instances where people just make stuff up about another religion or something with nothing to back up their statement. If you do this in congress, you'll get the lowest speech score from me. In any other debate style, its going to be very hard to gain my respect as a judge back.
If you ever have any questions let me know here: Ibitayo.L.Babatunde@gmail.com
I am familiar with IPDA debate with some understanding of Parli. I am extremely familiar, however, with IEs. My qualifications are about three years of collegiate debate, along with about seven years of IE experience. I am currently with the Arkansas State Debate team for IPDA and IEs.
I do pay attention to filler words. It’s good to practice not constantly saying, “like, um, stuff, etc.” that’s the IEer in me. Debate and certain draw rounds can be an exception to this, of course.
When it comes to specific debate strategies, I am familiar and okay with most of them. Debate is a game, if you play the right cards and make the right moves, it’s a fun round! So, run and do what you think is good.
I am big on specific rhetoric that is used. However, that should be given. Don’t be abusive.
During CX, I am okay with interrupting your opponent if it is your time to talk. I like straight to the point questions and answers. You don’t have to make those sound all pretty and nice. You only have two minutes.
Other than that, I just want the round to be educational and fun!
I am a fairly new judge to debate.
I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.
I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.
Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.
I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.
I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!
For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace, clarity of delivery, and organization.
Experience- I was a debater in High School on the Texas UIL circuit and am now on the Arkansas State University Debate Team. I have competed in LD, Congress, NPDA, and IPDA debate.
Philosophy- I look for a few things in rounds:
1. Clarity - Make it clear to me what you are arguing and how it applies to the resolution/case/etc.
2. Fulfillment of Burdens - In IPDA and LD rounds, I look to make sure that the two parties have fulfilled their burdens as a part of my decision. The burdens I observe are as follows:
a. Affirmative - You have the Burden of Proof. You must make your case and then provide either evidential or prudential evidence as to why your case is superior. Prefer no apriori warrants.
b. Negative - You have the Burden of Clash. You need to make it clear that you are attacking your opponent’s case either directly/CP/etc.
3. Remember to HAVE FUN – Debate is a game, have fun and do your best!
Speed- 9/10 Speed doesn’t bother me much. Make sure to clearly organize and slow down a tad for signposting. I want to make sure I have everything organized in my flow, so I can be as fair as possible.
Speaker Points- I award speaker points using the following rubric:
0-10: You have maybe introduced the topic and then proceeded to talk about something else entirely. I will never give this low of speaker points in a debate round.
10-15: Gave a speech. The organization wasn’t all there, and you didn’t respond to arguments clearly at all.
15-20: Gave a speech and had some organization. Clarity is lacking.
20-25: Gave a good speech with organization. Clear in your responses to your opponent’s argument.
25-30: Excellent speech. Showed a clear understanding of the topic and was very well organized. Good clarity throughout.
Welcome to my paradigm page, I am very glad to see you here. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A JUDGE THAT YOU READ THE THINGS THAT I SAY HERE IF YOU WANT TO WIN MY BALLOT:
To start, my credentials are as follows:
-Nationally ranked 7th in Big Question Debate
-The furthest a debater from Arkansas has ever advanced at the NSDA national tournament
-Arkansas State Champion for collegiate debate.
-Various first place trophies in the debate forms Big Question, Public Forum, IPDA, and Congress
With all of these in mind it is safe to say that I am well versed in all debate forms, though I never competed in policy or Lincoln Douglass debate I do have an great understanding of them.
Now, what does it take to win my ballot?
I am a simple guy, I like solid argumentation that is straight up with the topic and I don't want to see poorly thought out, squirrely argumentation. One would think that would be enough said on the issue, but I will outline what that means.
-I am traditionalist in debate forms. That is to say that in Public Forum, for example, I do not want to see people running Ks, plans, or especially spreading (brisk speaking is not spreading, spreading is marked by the sharp inhale of breath along with a massive amount of speed! Do not do this if you have any hope of winning my ballot, while I can keep up with you, I am a traditionalist and I know what the format calls for. Don't do it!)
-If you want to win my ballot, make logical arguments and impact them out for me. If you use a weighing mech, then keep using it if you want me to vote on it.
-Here I expect to see well thought out plans and argumentation. The restrictions that we have on other debate formats is lifted here, so speed, Ks, and plans are all encouraged. Ultimately do what you're supposed to do as a debater you'll have access to my ballot.
-*See Public Forum in regards to the rules on speaking*
-This is value debate, please do not lose your value.
-This is meant to be friendly and cordial and you will be judged on that. Don't try to bulldoze one another like you would see in another debate format.
-Debaters must further debate at all times to gain the latter half of their points. This is to say that what you need to do (after the authorship/sponsorship speech) is not just give me information, but also refute the other side.
-If I see you just giving me the same information as other debaters you will get no more than a 2 in regards to speech quality
-This debate is near and dear to my heart, I competed in it at nationals twice and my senior year it is the debate form that I placed 7th in the nation in. Suffice it to say that I know the ins and outs of this debate especially, and that includes the purposes of each speech. If you violate any of the Big Question principles either in speech purpose or via incorrect argumentation I will vote you down without hesitation.
Public Forum, Big Question, IPDA, and Congress debaters: Do not use a slippery slope argument, a plan, or a K on the resolution or I will drop you.
Beyond that, make sure your arguments are topical and impact them out for you, I am a flow judge and I do not shadow extend your arguments for you. You are not Aaron Rodgers and I am not Davante Adams, there will be no Hail Mary arguments caught by me for you to snatch the dub. Other than that, have fun and go catch some Dubs.
Hey guys!! My name's Andrea Dorantes, and I'm an alumnus of Bentonville High School in Bentonville, Arkansas. Currently, I am a junior at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. Before college, I competed in both Speech and Debate for 5 years. I am the 2017 State Champion in USX, a National Qualifier in Informative Speaking, and a Semi-Finalist in Informative Speaking at the National Tournament of Champions. I have also competed in Congressional Debate at a high level. Although most of my performance experience lies in the public speaking realm, I am confident in my ability to assess other performances with skill and consistency. Thank you for your patience and perseverance in this unconventional time, and I am glad your skills and hard work will be able to be showcased.
I'm really looking forward to watching these performances :)
I competed in multiple types of debate during my four years in high school. Public Forum was my specialty, with multiple appearances in state finals and state championship in Public Forum speaking. Along the way, I picked up three qualifications to NSDA nationals and another to the TOC in Kentucky.
Currently, I am in in law school and will be continue my debate skills by being on the trial team.
In undergraduate, I did college competition in IPDA debate. I have made multiple finals appearances as well as been nationally ranked in the top ten debaters in my division for the past two years.
I have also served as a parliamentarian for many high school tournaments while in college.
If you have any questions email me: email@example.com
General Debate Comments:
- Although an increased rate of speaking is the norm in the status quo, I don't want your breathing to become distracting and annoying with large intakes of air that are audible from space.
- T/Definition/Standard debate when done well and when needed will be rewarded.
- If a card becomes an issue I will call for it, please have cards ready if you foresee an issue in them.
- It is important that you are polite. Do not speak loudly to your partner while the opposing team is speaking. It it ok to pass notes, but you should not be audible to the judge or audience.
- Debate is about clash. This means that you HAVE to flow and you MUST not drop points. Organization that occurs through flowing will make sure that you clash with your opponent and do not drop key points.
- THE ONE THING THAT WILL KILL SPEAKER POINTS AND EARN AN L is if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic or disparaging to excluded groups. Please make sure your arguments do not fall into this category.
- I love theory and K debate, well done it will be rewarded. poorly done then :(
- Please do not call me judge :)
- You have to link your arguments to your V/VC (don't assume I know the link)
- Speed is fine as long as it doesn't exclude the other debater
- Ks need to be good and have the evidence to back it up to get my vote
- All General Debate Comments apply here as well. :)
- Anything that resembles a K/Plan will be voted down
- Flow is everything
- Any new arguments in the Final Focus will be thrown out and lower your speaks
- Do not assume I know the frame work link
- All General Debate Comments apply here :)
- The expectations for congress are for it to not look like any of the other debate formats. This is supposed to model real rhetoric used in actual congressional sessions.
- While your speech should have three points: intro, body, and conclusion. It should NOT sound like a debate case.
- Do not rehash arguments in the round just to get a speech in
- You should be be not only advancing your positions arguments but engaging with the opposition to persuade the chambers to vote a certain way.
- A good PO is one who does the bare minimum in controlling chambers. A GREAT PO is one who is commanding, possesses great knowledge of parli pro, and is a charismatic speaker. POs can either make or break a chamber.
This year is weird. I am grateful that we get the chance to see each other virtually instead of having our activity sidelined for the entire year. Let's make the best out of the 20/21 season!
I was a policy debater in West Texas in the late 90's. Competing and doing well in both UIL and TFA. Afterwards, I spent four years competing in two forms of limited prep debate at the collegiate level (IPDA and Parliamentary)
ONE DIAMOND COACH:
In 14 years of coaching, we have competed and won in Policy, Public Forum, Worlds School and Big Question. We are the only small-school ,from Arkansas, that has been consistent at qualifying for Nationals.
In the past 16 years, we have attended TOC 4 times and NSDA Nats 6 times. We have made it to nationals in everything from Oratory, World Schools Debate, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions and World Schools debate.
I have judged; 2020 NSDA PF FINALS, NSDA finals rounds of Individual events, NSDA Nats World Schools Debate, Big Questions, Lincoln-Douglas.
TOC PF and everything that you can think of on our local circuit.
This activity and its associated community give me life. It has led me from a life of poverty into a prosperous one that allows for a completely different world than I was raised in. I am honored to be judging debaters of your caliber and degree.
My View on debate:
It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine, indict and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.
I ,therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation , words used and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their social or political commentary.
If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. In fact, there is definitely ample ground for this argumentation in the April 2018 topic. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.
In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."
If you make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise blatantly discriminatory you will lose the round. Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass.
This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced based argumentation. I prefer a well warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence. [this is not to say qualification don't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased] Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter.
- Speed is fine. "Spreading" is not. Your breathing shouldn't become markedly different and noticeable because of your rate increase. The pitch of your voice shouldn't also change dramatically because of your delivery. If you are clean, clear and articulate then you are free to go as fast as you wish.
- Don't just extend cards with Author name. "Extend Samson '09". You need to explain why that argument is a good answer to whatever you are extending. For me, debate is more than just lines on a page. Your words matter. Your arguments matter.
- I feel that the first two speeches are solely for setting up the case in favor or opposition to the resolution. If an answer happens to cross-apply as a good answer to their case that is fine. But, I don't expect PF teams to divide their time in the first speeches to offer counter-arguments.
- No new in the 2. Core arguments should be flowing out of the first two constructive speeches. If it isn't covered by your partner in the second constructive or by you in the summary speech then it is dropped. Too little, too late. This isn't football and a Hail Mary will not occur.
- While I view debate as a game....it is more like Quidditch and less like muggle games. (*just because you win the most points doesn't make you the winner. If you catch that golden snitch....you can pull out the win! Don't be afraid to argue impacts as opposed to number of points)
- The affirmative has the burden of proof. It is their job to prove the resolution true. If the debate is a wash this means the default win will go to the negative. (low speak wins included)
- Framework: I will assume CBA unless otherwise stated. You can win framework and then lose the debate under that framework. That should be obvious. Make sure that you explain how and why you win under the framework of the debate.
- PF Plans/ CPs: Simply put. These are against the rule. You are allowed to give a general recommendation but this often delves right into plan territory.
- ATTITUDE: Humor is welcome. Sarcasm and rudeness are not.
- Evidence: Don't miscut evidence. I will call for evidence if (A) a team tells me to do so or (B) I suspect it is miscut.
- Round Evaluation: I am a flow judge. I will judge based on what happens in-round. It is your job to impact out your arguments. Don't just say 'this leads to racism'...TELL ME WHY RACISM IS BAD and what the actual impact is. Don't make me do the work for you. Make sure to weigh the arguments out under the frameworks.
- Shoo fly, you bug me:
- Don't tell me that something is dropped when it isn't. If they simply repeat their assertion in response, that is a different story. But if they have a clear answer and you tell me that they dropped that isn't going to end well for you. Don't extend through ink.
- Rudeness: This isn't a street fight. This is an intellectual exchange and thus should not be a showcase of rude behavior such as: Ad Hominem attacks on your competition, derision of your opponents argument or strategy, Domination of Cross by shouting/ cutting off / talking over your opponents.
- Arguing with me after disclosure. It wont change the ballot.
- Packing your things while I am giving you a critique.
Overall, do your best and have a fantastic time. That is why we are all here. If you have any questions about a ballot feel free to e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org
DO NOT BLATANTLY TALK ABOUT SENSITIVE MATERIAL WITHOUT GIVING A WARNING TO MYSELF AND YOUR OPPONENT, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT ANOTHER PERSON HAS LIVED AND THIS WARNING ALLOWS THE PERSON TO EITHER SEPERATE THEMSELVES OR AT LEAST PREPARE FOR THAT MOMENT
I am a student at Arkansas State University studying political science and women and gender studies. I debated for four years in high school both within Arkansas and on the national circuit. Over these four years, I mainly focused on Lincoln- Douglas and was able to go to the National Tournament in this event. I also have experience in Congressional Debate and Public Forum, as well as knowledge on Policy Debate. I debated for A-State where I competed in Parliamentary Debate and started a Congress chapter for the school.
Evaluating the Debate
I really do not care what you run. I think debate is all about creativity and education. Creativity can be many things, including talking about what you're genuinely passionate about. This was my go-to strategy just because it allowed me to have more pathos and ethos within the round. I think debaters often get too carried away with trying to win the ballot that they forget about what they're talking about. Debate is certainly a game to be won, but that doesn't mean we have to sacrifice the integrity of the content being delivered.
Some specific viewpoints:
I am not too fond of the idea that someone's ability to speak pretty should win them the round. However, I do believe it is the debater's job to ensure everyone can understand them. I am generally okay with speed, just as long as you're clear. With that being said, clarity is the most important thing, and you should never compromise it to read faster.
Also, it would be very helpful if you provide a concise road map before your speech. This is the only way I can ensure that everything you say will be taken into account. On that note, please try your best to signpost so I can evaluate things as clearly as possible.
I began debating the first year LD was introduced in Arkansas. Meaning, I am a very traditional person in that I believe some evaluation of framework is necessary to adequately evaluate the round. That does not mean I have to have a very traditional case. Framework can include a value, criterion, standard, role of the ballot, role of the judge, weighing mechanism, etc. The point is; framework is important to evaluate any case.
Please don't just say your framework either. Give me reasons why it matters in the round
In high school I hated Kritics, and sometimes I still do. I think the issue, however, is not with kritics, it's with debaters who are unable to understand what they're talking about. Don't worry, on many occasions, I was that debater who had no clue what I was talking about. I do ask, please don't run this position to just do it. There has to be a clear analysis and explanation of the literature.
Okay, topicality is really weird in high school, and for some reason, debaters are frowned upon for running this position. I think topicality can be a really strategic move for many negative teams, just as long as there is a clear violation and the interpretations are not closely related.
Counter Plans or Disads
They're cool, I don't care if you run them. You don't have to say "counter advocacy" you can call it what it is. Just make sure you have a clear counterplan, and explain the difference between it and the aff. Perm debate is always necessary and is the best way for affirmative debaters to gain access to this offense. I do not think a perm is a shift in advocacy, it is a test in competition.
- Please do not be rude to me or your opponent(s)
(this does not mean you can't have a personality or be "sassy" as some would say.)
- Please be courteous to those around you and respect their identities.
- Giving me voting issues is the best way to ensure I know how you weigh the debate... this goes back to a framework
- I want to be on an email chain: email@example.com
Note: Due to my busy lifestyle, I do not have a ton of background knowledge on these topics. So please do not assume I know all of your literature right off the bat.
I'm fine with most debate styles and strategies. I am however deaf in one ear, which hinders my ability to understand extremely fast talking - spreading. My qualifications are 2 years of LD in high school, occasional other types of debate, and I'm currently on the debate team at Arkansas State University for IPDA and Parli.
I do however have a couple of problems with certain arguments when it comes to LD:
If you read theory, it should be for actual reasons rather than just to steal time. If you run argumentation purely as a time suck and it's addressed by the opponent, just know that your chances for winning the round are pretty slim. Debate should be an educational event used to increase communication. Thus, argumentation should be made to serve that purpose, not to deter it.
In regards to anything else, just sign post and be clear. I can't flow argumentation if I can't hear it, so as long as I can hear the tags, we should be good.
Any other forms of debate:
IPDA - Just run what you think is good. You know what arguments fly and what don't. This debate format seems to really not dictate many rules from judges.
Policy - You probably don't want me as a CX judge because of my hearing ability.
PF - My old paradigm used to be (is this still a thing???) but after getting set as a judge for many PF rounds, I feel like I need a more educational paradigm. When it comes to numbers, tell me why it's important. If all I hear is number after number, there's 0 indication on how I should evaluate them, as well as what they even mean. Ultimately, I feel like a PF paradigm doesn't go much further than that. If you feel as though there has been abuse within the round, feel free to call it out and I'll weigh it how I feel it should be weighed.
In conclusion, I want the round to be both fun and educating.
I was an English major for my undergraduate degree and appreciate logical and well-expressed arguments.
Some general preferences:
No theory arguments. Debate the given topic.
Be considerate and polite in Cross Examinations.
Speak at a rate that can be reasonably understood.
Discriminatory/demeaning arguments or expressions will NOT be tolerated.
I am an experienced debater and I have performed in multiple speech individual events. I am currently competing in Varsity IPDA debate at Arkansas Tech University.
I don't care if debaters spread, however, I feel like content needs to be stated clearly. I vote based on strength of arguments as opposed to quantity. I will vote based on courtesy so please remember that in order to promote civil discourse you must treat your opponents like the human beings that they are. If you cannot present an appropriate attitude in the round, then you will see that reflected on your ballot.
LINCOLN - DOUGLAS
I judge components of LD in a hierarchy of burdens each debater has to fill:
1) FRAMEWORK - Value first, criterion second. I need to know the "what" of importance as related to the resolution before you tell me "how" that importance will be met in your criterion, and ultimately your case. If either side drops framework, it makes the round very difficult for them to win.
2) AFF CASE, BURDEN OF PROOF - The affirmative is the side advocating change. They therefore establish the arena that everyone plays in. They need to show how their perspective on the case represents the value the best and how that value substantiates a deviation from status quo. I need to see legitimate, topical blocks that fortify framework. Dropped aff arguments are devastating.
3) NEG CASE, BURDEN OF REJOINDER - The negative case has the responsibility to refute proof when aff has met their burden. Silence is consent. The negative cannot simply ignore or blatantly dismiss affirmative arguments, logical substantiated claims and warrants are a must for me to determine an aff point or subpoint has been refuted.
The side that best upholds framework, and also has the strongest and aggregate amount of legitimate arguments standing at the end of the round gets my ballot......
Unless a K argument is thrown down. Then ignore everything above this. The K rules over everything and it must be addressed before any of the normal LD stuff matters. Be careful, friends.
I will evaluate Public Forum as if I am a jury of 12 and you all are the lawyers. Pro is the Prosecution and Con is the Defense. What is on trial is the status quo in relation to the topic at hand. Pro/Aff in any debate round (with the exception of BQ) advocates for a change. Pro accuses the Con side of creating a risk with complacency in our current condition. Pro must present that change implied in the resolution has lower risk and higher benefits, and do so in effective qualitative ways, as opposed to a quantitative approach in policy debate.
The time is shortened for a reason folks.
Now, unlike a courtroom, Pro does not necessarily have to prove their side "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead, "on balance" - which basically means I have to find 51% or more favor to their side. I will look for the Con team to punch holes in this effort and basically convince me that either A) change is not necessary or B) the change the Pro side advocates is bad.
My ballot goes to the side that presents the least risk, and a better future outcome than what their opponents call for.
I'm a parli debater for Arkansas State University with about 7 years of speech/debate experience. in high school I did progressive LD debate and, in my senior year, I was the top LD debater in AR.
In a debate round, I feel that you should be able to run whatever you want. I'm fine with ks, case, theory, whatever. I'm also fine with spreading as long as you can do so with clarity. I am also a huge fan of weird/obscure/surprising args so do w that as you will.
I expect debaters to be kind to one another during round, however, I am a fan of friendly banter/roasts so if that's your cup of tea then go for it lol. Express general courtesy: ask if spreadings cool, ask to disclose, all that jazz before the round starts. I also expect an email chain to be shared between everyone, this makes it way easier for me to evaluate certain arguments and makes it way fairer for both debaters. mistakes happen, we all make them. email chains check for this.
on speaker points: idc about them so just have a fun round and you'll get 29s and (maybe) 30s
some things I don't like in a debate round are things like running theory just for the sake of theory (if there's no clear harm that you're facing and you still decide to run theory, don't expect to win on it or for me to even care about that arg.) or the obvious things like no racism, sexism, ableism, etc.
TL;DR: run whatever (i love weird arguments), spreading's cool, email chains pls, don't be an ass
(my email is firstname.lastname@example.org)
General Debate Paradigm:
Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).
In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)
In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run topicality in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and conncetion with your judge. Spreading harms or elimiates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading only but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.
I beleive in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, reguardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.
A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.
Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.
Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasuive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.
A word about style within the round:
Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.
Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.
Running Logical Fallacies are strongly discouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)
Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand.
If Aff doesn't rebuild and/or extend, they lose. If Neg doesn't attack and disprove, they lose.
Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.
For IPDA and Parli debate, I like to see line by line refutation. A major thing I pay attention to is how someone will respond in cross examination; if you dodge the question or if you answer eloquently.
For IE's I enjoy a lot of expression and movement. I also prefer slow, clear speech and direct statements.
I am a CX college debater at Wake Forest University (RS for life). I also debated for 4 years at Bentonville West High School (DR forever). If you have any questions about the round or anything in general, don't hesitate to email me at email@example.com (Also add me to the email chain)
Just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean it's just my face
Go off on whatever you want
Truth Over Tech (Tech is obviously amazing, but don’t go reading racism/homophobia good args or something like that because that ain't the truth, and arguments that are just not true are not persuasive)
Love speed especially when clear
If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism (sorry bout it)
Also, cross-ex is like... the most important part to me...
I think that debate is based on the contextualization of the round. Whatever comes out of your mouth is what I evaluate (which on paper sounds really weird but you get the point).
Don't be rude, but that doesn't mean you can't be bitchy, if fact I encourage it, if you know a claim is ridiculous call it out, clown on them, and CX is a perfect place to do this.
IMO CX is CX because of CX so I evaluate Cross-Ex ALWAYS. It's my favorite part, so y'all better know whatchu talking about because CX can be pretty damning for a lot of teams
KvK: I'm all for them, especially if it's done well. I love talking about specific theories and reading various literature on them. I do a lot of QT research so if you're planning on running with that I'd have a pretty good background on it before reading it in front of me. Anything else is totally fine, but I evaluate this in terms of a method v. method, not in terms of which method I think is better but which is better framed, linked, and described materially throughout the round. So tech helps you a lot here.
Plans: Sure! I read soft left affs in high school, so I have a soft spot for em........ If you're not reading one, topic analysis is obviously almost necessary, but even then if it says fvck the res that's totally fine too, C/I can help you with this as well. I read k affs, but I love clash debates.
Framework: As long as the affirmative doesn't screw up anything in this debate, I'd probably lean a little more aff 51/49, but that never means I won't vote on this. I will say there better be a lot of impact framing on this especially in the context of the round, cause I believe that the aff in itself is scholarship so that's already a plus for in-round analysis.
TvPlans: You can go for T in the 2NR, but there needs to be quite a bit of articulation, mostly just because I don't really understand it and I didn't do much of it in high school. I've never gone for T before, so if that gives you any information. Affs that are obviously untopical sway my vote in this case. Grammar T's are pretty strong tho too ;)
DAs: I like these, but at some point, I think they not only get repetitive but also boring. In this case, quality over quantity, because if not, it's a waste, so if you running it into the block, there needs to be a lot of contexts and in-round descriptions.
CPs: I like these, condo is definitely good in this case. I think theory on CPs can be strategic, I also like the creativity on CPs, but I think Fiat in all cases needs to be explained to me in the context of what we fiating and why we should be able to. I don't just buy a "we get fiat" argument, I need to know why you do.
Theory: Perm debate is good, but it isn't just about specific theories and why you deserve perms or not, it's also what can the perm do for each side, or why it's unfair for the affirmative to have one, I love out of the box answers to perms and play on words. Other theories are fine I guess but there needs to be more than a 1 line description and a fairness impact though.
KvPlan (K's in general): I like these kinds of debates, especially if there's a good link not just to the topic/overarching usfg, but specifically the plan itself and why voting aff causes specific disadvantages. Tell me why the perm can't work, and why the K and K alone is specific to solving the plan. I also live for the ways in which plan debaters respond to this, if done well can make for really good debates.
Also, I love putting DA names on links and examples, creative naming goes a long way for me.
Things I hate
- Blippy Disclosure (Unless breaking new or specific reason)
- Stealing Prep
- Homophobia/Racism/Sexism, etc.
Debates supposed to be fun and an awesome activity where we all get to hear each other's opinions, voices, and scholarship; don't ruin that. It makes debate inherently harmful and unfun, and I don't think engaging in such an intellectual activity should be either of those things.
If you got this far lol:
+.25 speaking points for each GOOD RuPaul's Drag Race reference ;) (This doesn't mean dancing btw - Asya told me I had to clarify that)
I'm on the debate team at Arkansas State University. I have 6 years of experience in a variety of formats, including LD, PF, StuCo, and Parli. I'm a traditional flow judge. You can run whatever you want, as long as it is well articulated.
I'm fine with spreading but your opponent needs to be fine with it as well. I value accessibility to the round.
Slow down when you read plan text, perm text, counterplans, etc. and please post them in the chat.
-Roadmap before you begin and signpost as you go through your speech. If you don't tell me where it goes, I'll put it off to the side until you do.
-If you are speaking too fast for me to flow, I will put my writing utensil down. If it goes down, that is your sign to slow down.
-Be civil, especially during cross examination time. It stinks to lose because you were equally matched, but one team was too snippy.
*No ad hominem attacks, purposeful misgendering, racist language, etc.
-Use your weighing mechanism or framework throughout the debate, not only at the beginning and only at the end.
*On that note, it is not in your best interest to waste time arguing framework or weighing mechanism unless the framework first provided is unfair. If you ask me to judge using both frameworks/weighing mechanisms, I will, but make sure you tell me how your case fits both.
Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach
I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line by line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with line by line argumentation.
Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.
I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.
I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line by line analysis. Organization is key to keep the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.
PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because your not clear, it could cost you the round.
Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.
You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.
I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.
If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.
Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all time.
This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!
I debated for three years at Bentonville High School, Arkansas in every style of debate. I did most of my national-level competition in LD and PF.
Generally, I am open to most styles/arguments. I would consider myself to be a flow judge so keep track of the line by line of arguments. BE ORGANIZED.
I will listen to anything. This is your debate. Talk about what YOU believe in. Be respectful. DO NOT use homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, xenophobic, etc. speech. I don't tolerate blatant disrespect. My preferences to specifics are listed below:
Be as fast as you want, but the second I stop flowing know you are unclear. I will yell "clear" twice, after that it is on you. I am totally cool with speed and the lack thereof. Generally speaking, be respectful of the usage of speed and be as clear as you can be.
Okay, kritiks aren't always the way to go in LD but I am totally fine with their correct implementation. I know most kritiks but DO NOT fall victim to the lack of explanation on said K. Be clear about your link and give me a really solid impact. Make sure the K alt interacts with the affirmative's solvency.
Topicality is procedurally important. I need a clear, organized topicality debate. Don't just go back and forth reading and rereading definitions. Give me good standards and voters and have solid clash on those.
Framing is very important in an LD round. Your framework (or lack thereof) is what I will use to decide the round. Make sure that you can achieve your value through your criterion. Framework should be continued well into the last speech. Don't waste your time on it, but don't undercover it.
I love solid case debate. Don’t assume I will flow your 1AC throughout the round if you aren’t extending it. Case debate is fundamental in a judge’s decision-making, especially in policy-oriented rounds. That being said, please cover offcase positions as well. Just don’t kick your case to the curb in the process.
Make sure your evidence is legitimate. I will call for any card that I deem questionable and value the integrity of said pieces of evidence. Be cautious of this.
Personally, I prefer an email chain over flashing. I would like to be included in these email chains if they are in use.
All in all, good luck! I am thrilled to see the talent you all possess be put into motion this weekend.
If you have any questions prior to the round email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I am a newer parent judge who has enjoyed this responsibility over the last year. I will listen to both arguments and make a fair and unbiased opinion based on the facts, and who seems to have the better argument. I expect participants to be respectful to one another while expressing their opinion and being passionate about it. I expect that you will be prepared for the debate and not fumble through the presentation. Bonus points for those that show evidence to their argument and can prove it relates to the topic at hand. If a participant makes a false statement, I expect the other side to argue and point it out in cross examination.
I debated for four years at Little Rock Central High School. I've been judging in Arkansas now for three years and also have some experience judging national novice tournaments.
I had a judgephilosophies page, but it looks like that page is gone so I'll write up the important things. If something you're concerned about isn't on here, just assume I don't have a particularly unique view on it.
Basically, I look for the team that impacts out their internal links the best. This doesn't always mean your typical ends-with-nuke-war scenarios, but it can also be impacts of standards and fairness on Topicality and Framework debates. The team who does the best job doing this almost always wins my ballot.
As a note, I have a decently high threshold on Framework and Topicality debates since I think there's a lot of potential in them that debaters don't utilize. That being said, I hate nominal (we attempted to answer their stuff, this should be a wash or go in our favor) debates of this kind and also just ones where the team isn't actually ready to read the arguments.
I also have a relatively lower threshold on non-mainstream kritiks (security and cap come to my mind as what I consider "mainstream" off the top of my head -- hopefully you get the idea). What really helps your cause here is a specific link (this applies to any neg argument though) and good articulation on things like the world of the alt on the K and internal net benefits on the CP. Without these things, in closer debates, I usually give the aff the benefit of the doubt since they read a 1AC and (hopefully) are doing impact overviews, and I prefer to weigh that analysis against an alt that's not articulated well or CP internal links not articulated well.
Feel free to ask me questions in person any time or shoot me an email at email@example.com!
I was a PF and Student Congress debater a few years ago.
I am a Tab judge — I'll attempt to remove any of my own beliefs/biases ahead of the round, and I will believe and vote on what you tell me to believe and vote on.
That said, I do highly value logical flow in argumentation. A should lead to B, B should lead to C.
Explain the impacts of your arguments. I want to know how your arguments will affect the US, the world, my own life, or whatever scope your impacts end up having.
Feel free to give frameworks of how I should view the round. In PF, you can tell me how I should define and weigh "on balance".
I will vote on impacts you flow over well and how those impacts affect whatever framework or voting issues you've successfully established.
Affiliation and Big Picture:
I debated three years for Bentonville HS, then debated policy, parli, and collegiate LD for Oklahoma. Currently a master's student at NYU and a Mock Trial/Model UN assistant coach in Albany, NY.
I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too.
Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such.
Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors.
I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard.
Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t.
K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated.
DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly.
Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it.
Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable.
Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.
Former k policy and congressional debater from Little Rock Central High School. I attend the University of Arkansas- Fayetteville and do not actively debate.
email me for questions: email@example.com
Note: please don't call me ma'am- I won't call you out if you do, but I prefer not being called that. I use they/she pronouns & prefer they.
Spreading is OK for me.
In high school, I was the kind of debater that constantly had Framework debates and hated the subject. Now, especially judging formats like Big Questions and LD, I appreciate Framework a lot more and give that argument priority. Please tell me how to vote and what to vote for!
I also never read a capitalism or hegemony good argument, although I will vote for it if it's the more substantiated and better debated claim.
To get good speaker points, have a well structured speech, speak clearly, and use lots of good well thought out evidence. I think a well organized speech is what I look for and appreciate the most.
I'm a freshman debater for Mostate, and debated on the Missouri circuit for all of high school. Something small and nitpicky is I really don't like it when people clearly just don't flash analytics, if it's on your flow that's fine, but its such a small advantage that also makes it harder for me to flow that I would rather everyone just flash everything they can. I tend to lean towards tech, but if you're winning a clearly unture argument just be sure to explain it well. I'm good with anything, please slow down a little bit for theory/analytics, and make sure to give specific overviews with K's so that I can keep up.
Also please just be generally nice, it makes it a better experience for everyone!
Experience: Current member of the Arkansas State University Debate and Forensics team. I have a background in IPDA and Parliamentary debates, as well as Congress, LD, and various others. For IEs I have experience competing in extemporaneous and impromptu speeches, as well as informative and persuasive speeches. I am also experienced in performance-oriented IEs as well.
Paradigm: I'm not looking for anything in particular when I judge a round. Clarity is important to me, because I need to understand the case you're making and how it applies to the resolution. Aside from that, as long as you follow rules and are civil to one another, I'm not really going to be picky about anything else. Speed is not an issue with me as long as I can understand what you're saying.
Little bit about me, I prefer to be called Henry, the whole judge thing is a little too formal for my liking. I did PF at BHS for three years in high school.
If I'm your judge it's pretty simple:
1. I like to see good, consistent, clash in the round
2. I am perfectly fine if you have some sass// pick at your opponent in your responses// questions during cross fire. That said you obviously know where the line is and to not cross is, and if you do I will immediately vote you down.
3. I hate definition debate, the only time that you should HAVE to use definitions is a word that is ambiguous or could have multiple meanings. So please don't define words like should, ought, etc. we know what they mean, spend those extra seconds somewhere else in your speech.
If you have any other questions I'll be happy to answer them before the round, however if you didn't take the time to read this I will not repeat my paradigms before rounds, it's your job to come prepared.