The 2nd Annual Quarantine Classic
2021 — Online, US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
General Debate Notes:
-Experienced with PF & LD I usually judged rounds on JoyOfTournaments two years back and that’s not really a thing anymore
I say I’m truth > tech but that’s just to avoid saying I’m a tech judge altogether. If you make a claim and it sounds relatively sturdy in round and you warrant and explain it properly I’ll usually buy it as true even if it’s not reflective of reality. This is more reserved for outlandish arguments that clearly aren’t true. (Like USFJG Causes Nuclear War)
I am big on evidence knowledge. You should know what your evidence is and why it says what it says. I’m 100% more likely to buy a sturdy analytic than evidence that just says “This Happens” with 0 explanation. Always make sure to at least try and explain *why* your evidence is saying something is going to happen, not just that it will.
-I won’t buy 1% probability arguments unless the links are extremely sturdy and the teams running them prove them so, even then if the link is sturdy then it’s certainly more than a 1% chance.
-I want historical examples.
-Please be entertaining rounds can get boring to watch. Don't try to be funny if you're not, a lot of you aren't. If you are funny please be funny.
-I don’t mind theory if you can explain why it’s beneficial to the debate space. Likely won’t vote off disclosure. This is more reserved for pronoun and any alike stuff. I’ll vote off those.
-I don’t appreciate US-Centric debates on topics like IMF or Africa Urbanization. USA-Centric on stuff like M4A was fine, but I’ll be much less receptive to US-Centric stuff on IMF. On the electoral college topic USA centric stuff is 100% fine
-I listen to cross! Usually if I hear a team or someone conceding something in cross I’ll write it down and if it’s brought up in the next speech I’ll evaluate it. You can use cross as a time to just understand each other’s cases. You can do whatever you want with cross just know I am listening in.
-The above applies for all “debate” events.
-I will also drop you if you are bigoted in round or excessively rude. No hesitation.
Note For Speech/Interp:
I am huge on authenticity. I want to know you’re performing because you care and not solely to place
I’m not a fan of cookie cutter “Society Sucks” Oratories. I really want to see you challenge yourself and critically think deeply about a topic, you can absolutely pick a common topic (IE: School Anxiety, Being Tolerant & Other Common Topics) but I want to see it from your angle. Show me that you truly care.
If you need me to clarify anything about ranks please don’t hesitate to reach out to email@example.com I try to be very thorough in my feedback but if you still want anything clarified , feedback or advice don’t hesitate to reach out. I’ll try to answer as fast as I can and clear up any issues. (This also goes for debate! If coaches or students have any issues email me.)
[Background] I am currently at UT Austin majoring in MIS. I also debate for the University and work as an Assistant PF Coach at Seven Lakes. Previously, I debated at Vista Ridge in PF reaching State & TOC. Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Vista Ridge (TX), Interlake (WA). Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
[Evidence] Evidence ethics can make or break a round. I expect properly cut cards that can be produced in a timely manner at your opponent’s request. If you take more than 1 minute locating “evidence” I will run your prep time. I do not expect disclosure full-text or otherwise and I am also okay with paraphrasing, though I do not prefer this. I am open to evaluating and voting off disclosure & paraphrasing theory.
[Argumentation] This is really up to you; you’re debating not me. However, I do prefer weighing or framing coming out of the 1st rebuttal. 2nd rebuttals are expected to frontline AND collapse. I prefer line-by-line summaries and I don’t have a preference for how you treat final focus. Please make your weighing comparative. Repeating you impact and tagging “scope” and/or “magnitude” after it is not weighing, it’s just proving to me you know how to memorize a number.
[Speed/Speaks] I am okay with speed so long as you don’t sound like “hghghhdhhhss.” Speaker points generally range from 28-29.5. This is largely based off my subjective view of how articulate and convincing you sound as a debater. Although I am not extremely invested in crossfire this will affect your speaks. Please avoid being an unnecessary prick in cross unless it is tied to making a tasteful joke. Feel free to cut GCX for +90s of prep to both sides.
Feel free to ask questions after the round, I am here to help you learn and improve.
Other paradigms I agree with: Jack Hayes, Jonathan Daugherty, Max Fuller, & Nahom Tulu.
Hello! I’m a 1st year out from Chanhassen HS (Minnesota) and attending the University of Florida.
If you care about my experience: I joined debate in my sophomore year in High School, competing in PF all 3 years (and did congress once). I found success at locals and national circuit tournaments. I'm a 2x National Qualifier, breaking at nationals both my junior (top 65) and senior (top 45) years. I also broke at a few nat circ tournaments my junior/senior years.
Note for Bronx: This is my first time judging this topic, and I haven't done anything debate-related since nationals so please keep that in mind.
If you have any questions or would like to add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Super short version: Standard Flay Leaning Tech judge, I will usually vote off the flow but recognize I am human and am subjected to my own biases depending on presentation. If you want to go tech, I would appreciate it if it didn't sound like a monotone mess and don't spread on me.
If you skip over everything else in my paradigm, at least read this. If you spread, you are guaranteeing you get below 27 speaks and if it's incomprehensible to the point that anyone must shout "clear" multiple times, you're likely going to lose. I have Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis and due to this, I cannot flow super fast arguments, that's not saying I will give up - but don't expect me to put myself through physical pain to catch everything. If you plan on spreading: strike me or emphasize the things you need me to catch. That being said, I do prefer conversationally quick debate and can flow 850-900 word (PLEASE stay below 1,000 words) rebuttals/case as long as your annunciation is good.
Here are my in round preferences:
Content/Trigger Warnings: YOU MUST READ ONE. If you have an issue with an argument presented in the round - you don't need a warrant for why something triggers you, just a general warrant for why it would be triggering in general and you don't need to disclose if you are triggered either. Run a shell, even informal and I will most likely vote on it
I will end the round if I deem it necessary for the safety of any competitor, and give the team responsible for the lack of safety a loss.
Stylistically: I am willing to adapt to teams, but keep in mind that I do have a preference towards techier debate but don't spread "uniqueness controls the direction of the link" and if you do you will get a "cool" on my flow. Again, don't spread (seriously, don't). Don't flow through ink, I vote off of any offense at the end of the round.
On Presumption: I honestly believe that the ones about speaking order or the "status quo" are a waste of time, if there is a SYSTEMIC disadvantage (i.e sexism, racism, etc) that you say I should presume you on - I would absolutely be down for that.
On Theory/Ks/Progressive debates: I will listen to any progressive arguments and am willing to vote off of it, I’ve ran theory myself and also have some experience with Kritiks (having run the majority world K, and an ableism rage K) but don't read like high-level kritiks without explaining it to me and how I should evaluate it. Also, I don't think that there really can be an Alt in PF debate since usually, that would be a counterplan... which is illegal...
Friv: Disclosure theory (if you're reading this against a small school), shoes theory, or any shells of the sort. I will most likely not vote on it, especially if you're running it against novices because I think friv theory, in general, is really bad for debate.
I default to competing interpretations for most shells unless you can tell me why I should intervene with reasonability.
Furthermore, as a female-presenting former debater, I am well aware of the microaggressions that exist within this community.
Male PFers: Your voices are naturally louder and deeper than womxn debaters. Do NOT speak down or over womxn opponents. I don’t want ANY questions regarding your opponents' knowledge on the topic, or anything of that sort. It’s degrading and inappropriate. If you do I will either drop you or at least tank your speaks because of this. (I have had personal experience with it, and it's why there is such a gender gap in PF)
Finally, I will not tolerate any racism, homophobia, xenophobia, antisemitism, ableism, or anything of the sort. This will not only result in the lowest possible speaks but also a drop.
I think speaks are meaningless and are extraordinarily subjective. I'll start with a 30 for everyone, and lower it if you're problematic or disregard my paradigm.
firstname.lastname@example.org please add me to email chains
from planet debate-
this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.
topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.
cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.
das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.
critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.
others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.
Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.
Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)
Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas
I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.
One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.
Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.
CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.
DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.
The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.
Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.
Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.
Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.
As far as judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as I assume you are pretty experienced if you are debating Policy).
Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.
First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.
Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.
Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.
Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.
Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.
Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.
Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.
Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.
DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP
CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.
Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.
Include me in your email chain: email@example.com
(work in progress)
Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.
Good luck and have fun!
I have participated in debate for more than 6 years, including public forum, LD, and Policy Debate. I am open to all kinds of arguments and speed.
Clarity outweighs speed. Quality outweighs quantity.
Just a reminder, the purpose of debate is not only to present your arguments but to engage with your opponents.
I have experience doing speech as a kid and experience of being a speech judge.
Keep mind of the time management, clarity, and volume.
Competition is never about only about winning and losing, its more about what you've learned.
A little bit about me:
I am a flow judge
I flow everything, and I look at cards to see if they are real, even if opponents don't want to see them
I need a speech doc if someone reads over 230 wpm
If someone speaks over 200 wpm, the opponents can tell the other team to speak slower
I do Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas and NO SPEECH EVENTS
I choose the winner based on my flow (if something doesn't get onto my flow, it won't have a role in who the winner is)
I disclose only if both teams are okay with that
Be nice, and don't just claim things
I may ask for cards if I see a team claiming a crazy thing
I do not consider anything "common sense" so I won't listen to a team who tries to tell me that their claim is true because it is "common sense"
- I always know the topics very well, and I can smell lies from a mile away, so I will note if a team tries to lie
Theory: If you run theory, you have to explain it very well. I'll buy any sort of theory, as long as it is well explained.
Evidence/Cards: Paraphrasing cards is allowed. but people may not misuse cards in anyway (e.x. adding words into a cut card).
Prog: If you run progs, then just explain them very well. I'm not very experienced with Progs, so if you want me to buy those arguments, you have to talk in a simple way and explain yourself very clearly.
Cases: I don't allow counterplans in PF (you shouldn't run counterplans anyways) and I also don't like cases with 4 or more contentions because then it's just way too many arguments to flow.
DA's: I allow running DA's in your case as long as you explain them well.
Rebbutals: Rebbutals must respond to every single case argument of then I consider those arguments dropped.
Summary/Final Focus: I will evaluate stuff brought up in summary as long as it is a response made against a rebuttal argument. Weighing must be brought up in summary, or then I will not evaluate it. Also, new points may not be brought up in final focus.
Tech > Truth but the sky is still blue
Cases: Please don't run more than one counterplan (it just ruins your side)
Constructive: The neg must respond to the aff case or then I will consider the arguments dropped.
Rebbutals: Neg can't bring up new responses in the 2NR unless it's a response made in the 1AR. Also, I personally really hate it when teams bring up new evidence in the 2AR.
Value Premise: A value premise, in my opinion, should be a maximum of 3 words. I don't like when a team's value premise is an entire sentence. Also, it must connect to your case, or then I will assume the other persons' value premise.
Value Criterion: A value criterion must relate to the value premise. If not, then I will disregard the value premise and value criterion.
Hi I am Rishit Pradhan debate for a while at Stockdale HS. I enjoy the activity
i would consider myself a pretty experienced judge, and have judged a substantial amount of LD rounds at various tournaments including CHSSA middle school State. Furthermore, I also have helped teach many kids LD and continue to do so rn.
I have done Circuit LD for a good amount of tourneys with mostly decent performances making bubble rounds a couple times. I also did extemp and got multiple TOC and ETOC bids and broke at nationals I also did trad ld at some invitationals broke at one and locals. I also did PF won some tourney. I also did XDB won a couple tourneys broke at Nats.
Anything is fair in debate and war (except war crimes which translates to homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc. in debate) (also don’t be a jerk)
My voting is pretty even for each side. I have never Sat so far.
I will evaluate any argument if it has a claim and a warrant.
I don’t believe in this whole idea of Tech vs Truth on judge paradigms, but our perceptions of “truth” attract judge intervention, so I only go with Tech
Updated for Stephen Stewart CA-LD:
To win my ballot in lay you have to convince me to vote for u based on the winning round FW. No cap I’m cool with you conceding your framework to your opponent if you can win under it. The whole point of a FW is to help evaluate the round, not to act as an “offensive arg”. Even if you lose the FW debate, if you prove why your contentions link better to your opponents FW than theirs, you have my ballot.
Do impact calc always!!
Make sure to explain why/how you win in rebuttals (2ar/1nr)
Extend your case across the flow, nonextended arguments will be considered Dropped/I will judge kick them.
Conceded args are true if they have a claim and warrant and are extended until the end of the rd.
Quick Prefs (Circuit): (not what I like but what I feel is the easiest to judge)
1 - Theory/Larp
2 - K/clean tricks
3 - Bad tricks/Pomo stuff
4/5 - Phil (pls do not run I don’t understand)
everyone gets a 30 unless you do something that’s really strategically bad. I don’t like speaks. If you do anything that harms safety in debate space tho that’s an L 20 moment. Evidence ethics violations is a L 20 moment too.
If you’re debating in front of me at JV KRFL then I’m a parent judge!
Also don’t bully novices just chill
I've been debating for 2 years and I'm a junior at Allderdice HS in Pittsburgh PA. I am pretty active on the local circuit but have also done some competitions on the national circuit as well.
email for chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
tech>truth for substance, but truth>tech for theory and Ks and other stuff. Weighing is important and I like fun weighing too. Second rebuttal should frontline about half the time and then respond to opps. ALSO, This should really go without saying but any sort of language that is misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. will get you an instant L20 and I will report you to the people running the tournament.
I like it. It's useful for my flows. If you don't do it I'll probably lose a bunch of what you say because I'll spend longer than I should have to going down my flow (which is usually pretty extensive when I judge) looking for what you're responding to.
This is a fun time to get good speaks if I like what you do. Obviously I don't vote on it but I do feel I value it more than other judges. If your opp says something stupid, you should bring it up in a speech and make fun of them for it. Just kidding, don't do that, but cross is important. GCX can be skipped but sometimes it's fun to see who can get the most aggressive on a screen.
First rebuttal should just go straight down the case and then weigh if you want. Also if you have really good framework that goes really counter to what your opps have, bring that up. Me and my partner like framework and so I judge good framework very generously. People now really hate card dumping, and while I don't think it's very fun, I acknowledge it can sometimes be effective, so I'm not going to doc you anything because of it. I already said this, but second rebuttal should be about 50/50 on your case and then your opps.
This is definitely the hardest speech of the round and also a speech I never give. First summary should probably extend turns, and then frontline what they're going for. Second summary can never bring up new evidence I'll drop it instantly. Second summary does pretty much the same as the first in my opinion, but I think it's fun when summary speeches are creative.
Definitely slow down during FF as you're done bringing in new things and usually reiterating what you've liked throughout the round. Usually at this point I already have a winner, but in close rounds it can definitely be a real deciding factor in the winner.
I will always disclose after the round as long as the competition lets me. I think debate is educational before everything else and if I can't give you my feedback, then what's really the point?
Spreading I feel is one of those things that both sides should agree to pre round. I can flow as fast as it gets, but I understand not everyone can. If you plan on spreading, ask everyone before the round and make sure I know that you asked and then we'll do it. If you don't ask I'll probably drop speaks a lot. I will also get to theory later and why I don't like it, but this is one of the few exceptions. If you said pre round that you can't flow spreading, run some theory against it and make it a voting issue and I'll vote on it.
Disclosing is stupid. Debate is educational and the best way to educate yourself is to not know everything your opp is going to say before they say it. If you're not thinking on your feet, what's the point? If you run disclosure theory, you're wasting your time.
Speaks are stupid, but also fun. I am pretty generous. If you get below 27ish you probs did something wrong. I think analogies are pretty cool and if you make good ones in like summary or something I'll send you some love in the speaks. I also think really weird link chains are fun too. If you have contentions with like nuclear war impacts or something, run them. You'll make everyone laugh and that's fun.
Not only do I not mind, I highly encourage it. It holds me accountable for my decision and can teach me more as a new judge. I hate it when judges give very little RFD and I also hate typing it up so I'd prefer to give it all right there post round so just fire away all your questions there.
There's two kind of Ks, the ones you say just because you want to win and the ones you actually agree with. I'll vote on the latter and I can tell which is which. (Unless you're a really good liar, then go for it.)
All other progressive args
Same as above except for a few exceptions.
1. I said it above, but spreading theory is fine.
2. The K that won TOC 2021 was pretty cool and very necessary. If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch this video, these people are pretty cool. https://youtu.be/7iG_0V9dGRo?t=1970
Please have them on for online tournaments. There's no option to put a black screen over your face at in person tournaments so why turn them off? I like to see who I'm judging. With that said though, dress as casually as you want, idrc.
I personally love all things debate. I spend way too much time watching rounds of people I admire doing what they're best at and I believe we all have things to learn from each other. Please please have fun with your rounds. We stress too much about tournaments but don't realize how trivial they truly they are. Follow me on insta @jonahrosenberg_
Have fun guys
Please add me to the email chain at email@example.com
Experience: CX for 5 years (Grade 6-10), PF for 2 years (Grade 10-11), World Schools (Grade 12)
Furthest I’ve Gone in Tournaments: Taiwan Nationals Winner/Top Speaker 2015 in CX and Quarterfinals in TOC PF Silver in 2016
Judging Style: I am a flow heavy judge. However, I will only write down what you say and will make judgments based on your arguments only. For example, if your opponent double-turns themself but you don't address it, I will not count it against your opponent. I will only use my own judgment and experience if both sides have equal arguments.
Frameworks: If you have a framework, I will judge based on it. If you have a framework and your opponent doesn't bring up a counter-framework, the debate will be judged based on your framework.
Theory/Kritiks: I am okay with theory but will need you to explain it carefully. Do not play the theory game if you are unable to explain all your links. It is NOT my burden to understand all the possible Kritiks out there. IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT I WON'T VOTE FOR IT. It is your responsibility as the debater to explain the K if you run it. I do prefer DAs/CPs to Ks. I’m generally good with Marxism Ks, Feminism Ks, Ableism Ks, and Race Ks (I ran Afro-Pessimism and Afro-Nihilism in the past) but anything beyond these I’m going to need clear explanations about the theory. I also need you to have an impact on your K or else I don’t see a point in it.
LD debaters: Please do not expect me to understand every single theory thing that pops up. I'm comfortable with the basic ones used in CX, but please play safe and pretend I don't know much.
Impacts: It is extremely important to me that your case and arguments have a tangible impact. If the argument is part of a link game, that's fine but the link game must end in an impact. Do not leave me thinking so what? If that happens and the opponent makes a decent counterargument, I'll give it to them.
Speed is fine but please be clear.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Senior at Highland Park.
Debated policy for three years, did LD on the UIL circuit.
I've seen a lot of things, but I myself have run tons of stuff. Went for the cap K a lot, and have seen most generic Kritiks so if its not a more mainstream one pretend as if I have no knowledge on the topic because I probably don't.
I'm not too familiar with this water topic, but I know the basics so if you're gonna be super jargony explain the first time around and I'll get it.
I prefer if you have your camera on just to make speeches easier to follow, but if you have camera problems it's all good.