Tabroom.com

New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2021 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

Public Forum Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Shaoying Liu Montgomery Blair

Noor Abdallah Northview High School

Last changed on Fri February 3, 2023 at 10:38 AM EDT

PF: I only think an email chain is necessary if audio is not the best or you plan on spreading. Email me if there is any way I can make the round more accessible.

email: noorabdallah101@gmail.com

I am a third-year student at the University of Georgia. I did four years of PF at Columbus High School, and one year of policy at UGA.

Policy: I am still learning policy myself, so please take that into account if I am your judge. I will always try my best to make the best decision and I am way more comfortable with DA's and CP's than K's. Just do not expect the same out of me as you would a regular policy judge :)

Speaks:

1. In terms of speed, I can comfortably handle around 250-270 wpm. Online debate might not allow that speed, keep that in mind. I don’t really see the need for spreading, but if you do, ask your opponents and send a speech doc. If you do this to confuse them and win, I will drop you.

2. No judge will get everything you say, so warrant.

3. I am a huge lover of puns. Wit and puns are appreciated in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach immediately. Assertive and funny debaters are different from rude ones.

Argumentation:

In short, you do not want me to interfere as a judge. Do the work for me and that means to make clean extensions, frontline, and weigh. In detail, here are things that win my ballot:

1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. In that case, you probably won't like my decision. I will do everything I can to ensure a fair round from my part but don't get mad at me if I don't flow a one-second extension that isn't flushed out.

2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands. If they extend their warranted response(s) throughout round and you do not respond to it, you are in a bad position.

3. Signposting is extremely helpful and should be done :) I RARELY flow author names so do not just extend "Smith 19" and think that is you extending something. I should hear what Smith 19 said over and over.

4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.

5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format (though line-by-line is better to me). Create the narrative, defend, extend, weigh. New weighing in both summaries is fine.

6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF). There really shouldn't be any new arguments in 2nd summary.

7. I am not your judge for theory, K's, topicality, etc. I have voted for these things before, and am understanding them as a policy debater. BUT reading theory against a team who doesn't know how to deal with it is abusive.

8. I use cross to write feedback, so anything said is not binding, just bring it up in a speech because I probably didn’t listen. Use cross strategically and for your own benefit.

First-Speaking Team:

1. I do not require defensive extensions in first summary if they have not been responded to. However, you must extend overviews/turns if you expect me to be voting off of them.

2. By final focus, you should know what your opponents are going for. Defensive extensions must be in final focus if you want them to factor into my decision. Defense not responded to by the second-speaking team by second-summary is dropped defense - bring it up!

Second-Speaking Team:

1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns/disads. The only other time second- speaking team has time to respond is second summary, and that is extremely abusive. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round. To clarify - if the rebuttal does not have to answer all terminal defense, the summary obviously must, or I will consider it dropped.

2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond. Also, this is not your chance just to extend through ink because no one will be able to call you out on it.

Evidence:

1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and available almost immediately (30 seconds is reasonable time) within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.

2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you and your speaks. I am very very okay with cards that are paraphrased as long as they are not misused (feel free to have this argument with me)

3. I like logical responses just as much as I like carded responses. But just like a carded response, logic should make sense and be warranted. The card does half the work, do the other half and apply it in round.

Otherwise, if you have any questions, please ask me or email me at noorabdallah101@gmail.com ! Debating is supposed to be an educational, motivational, and fun experience so make the most of it! I will always disclose and give feedback if the tournament allows me.

Good Luck :)

Deepak Agarwal Eden Prairie High School

Nibhan Akbar Hire

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 11:44 PM CDT

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

Adam Alamy Fairmont Prep

Lillian Albrecht Hire

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 10:37 AM CDT

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

For TFA 2024: please add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com to the chain and make sure your documents are able to be viewed after the round (ideally a PDF or Word document). Please arrive to rounds early and be preflowed, especially for flight 2.

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

Silvia Aydinyan Edina High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 5, 2022 at 6:54 AM CDT

Junior econ + political science double major @ UChicago. Used to debate in HS/coached a successful team for 2 years but likely pretty detached from the topic/literature now, so just keep that in mind.

Email: saydinyan@uchicago.edu

---

Read content warnings for arguments that contain discussion of violence, whether it's gender-, race-, class-, or anything else-based. You should also send out an OPT-IN form before the round if you intend to read these arguments, and not read them if everyone does not consent to it.

---

TL;DR: I'm a normal tech judge. I like judging fast, techy rounds, but not when you sacrifice warranting and explanation for the sake of strategy. Please debate to your strengths and not my preferences. Winning on the flow is winning on the flow even if you do it differently than I'd prefer.

I am okay with most arguments except for ones that are offensive or exclusionary. Kind of a no-brainer.

I don't like intervention, and I think as a debater, it's in your best interest to close all doors to it. You should be resolving all clash that you want me to evaluate. This means you should be weighing and giving me specific reasons as to why I prefer your warranting/evidence/whatever over your opponents'. Obviously, if you make me intervene to resolve something I will try to be reasonable, but if you're leaving that door open, you also lose your right to complain about which direction the intervention goes.

Extend properly. I have pretty high standards for this, so to be clear, you should be extending the uniqueness, warrant, internal link, and impact on your offense, for theory you need to explicitly extend your interp, etc, etc.

I love hearing creative and/or smart strategies (baiting some type of response you can dump turns on, reading an impact turn on yourself to kick out of link turns or vice versa, smart overviews, etc.) Obviously not required but I'll have way more fun.

Progressive args: Just FYI I went to a small school and never ran/formally learned progressive arguments, but I've coached teams that read them and I'm fine with you reading them. In general, theory should be okay. IRL I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I'm not a hack for anything and you can convince me to vote either way on these. I definitely have some implicit bias towards theory when used to check abuse, and I do generally prefer good substance debates over theory debates. I'm not super familiar with K literature but have judged Ks before, and if you can explain it well and articulate how things function in the context of the round then you will not have an issue. However, as I said above, it's always in your best interest to close doors to intervention and tell me exactly how you want me to evaluate parts of your argument.

---

Remember that you're allowed to have fun and insert humor into the round. Please be nice to each other. It's a good real-world skill.

Finally, you can feel free to postround me. If a judge can't defend their decision it probably wasn't a good one. As long as you stay polite I'm happy to explain my thinking.

Luke Bagdon Pennsbury High School

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 8:11 AM EDT

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

do you, and do it well
don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene
don't misgender me, or your competitors
do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging
of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment
apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.
'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.
going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos
i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Ray Banke Byram Hills High School

Nicole Becker Horace Mann School

Brian Benchek Hawken

Bryan Benitez Delbarton School 8 rounds

Sandy Berkowitz The Blake School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:47 PM CDT

Revised April 11, 2018

Sandy Berkowitz

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN), where I teach communication and coach Public Forum, World Schools, Policy, and Congressional Debate. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

I debated policy in high school and college and began coaching in the early 1980s. In addition to the events listed above, I have coached and judged Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, Oratory, Rhetorical Criticism/Great Speeches, Informative, Discussion, and (and to a lesser extent) Interp events, at variety of schools in IL, NY, NC, MN, MI, ME, and CA.

Public Forum

Fundamentally, I believe that PF provides debaters with opportunities to engage and debate key issues of the day before experienced debate and community judges. It is useful and important to understand and adapt to a judge’s preferences. So, for me:

General issues

--The crux of PF is good solid argumentation delivered well. Solid arguments are those that relate to the resolution, are well organized, well warranted, and supported with quality evidence that is explained.

--Good analytical arguments are useful but not normally sufficient. If you make an argument, you bear the responsibility of supporting, explaining, and weighing the argument.

--I flow. But, clarity is your responsibility and is key to a good debate.

Evidence Ethics

--Evidence is critical to building good arguments and that includes warrants. Use academically rigorous and journalistic sources to support your arguments. Offering a laundry list of 5-10 names with few warrants or methodology is not persuasive.

--Proper citation is essential. That does not mean “University X” says. A university did not do the study or write the article. Someone did. Source name and date is required for oral source citation. Providing qualifications orally can definitely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of your argument. The complete written citation (including source name, date, source, title, access date, url, quals, and page numbers) must be provided when asked in the round.

--Exchange of evidence is mandatory when requested. There is not infinite prep time to find evidence. If it takes you more than a minute to find a card when asked, or all you can provide is a 50 page pdf, then I will disregard it.

--Paraphrasing is not as persuasive as reading cards and using the evidence appropriately to develop and deepen your arguments.

--If you have misconstrued evidence, your entire argument can be disregarded.

--Evaluate your own and your opponents’ evidence as part of your comparative analysis.

Strategic issues

--Extending arguments goes beyond authors and tag lines. Extend and develop the arguments.

--Narrative is key. Debate is inherently persuasive. Connect the arguments and tell a story.

--It is in the best interest of the second speaking team for the rebuttalist to rebuild their case. If the 2nd speaking team does not do that, they likely yield the strategic advantage to the 1st speaking team.

--Avoid Grand becoming yelling match, which is not useful to anyone.

--Clash is critical. It is vital to weigh your arguments, which is best to begin before the final focus. Write the ballot in the final focus.

Delivery and Decorum

--PF, and all debate, is inherently a communication activity. Speed is fine, but clarity is absolutely necessary. If you unclear or blippy, you do so at your own peril.

--Be smart. Be assertive. Be engaging. But, do not be a bully.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Finally, have fun and enjoy the opportunity for engagement on important questions of the day.

World Schools

Worlds is an exciting debate format that is different from other US debate and speech formats. It is important for you to understand and adapt to the different assumptions and styles of Worlds. Content (the interpretation of the motion [definitions, model, stance], arguments, analysis, and examples), Style (verbal and nonverbal presentation elements), and Strategy (organization, decision making, engagement, and time allocation) all factor in to the decision and should be seen as critical and interrelated areas. Some things to consider:

--As Aristotle noted, we are influenced by both logos and pathos appeals, which you should develop through both examples and analysis. Thus, narratives are critical. Not just a story to “put a face on the motion,” but an overall narrative for your side of the debate.

--Motions are, in most cases, internationally, globally focused and your examples and analysis should reflect that.

--Have multiple, varied, and international examples that are used not only in the first speeches, but are also developed further and added in the second and third speeches to be more persuasive.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--POIs can be statements or questions and are a key element of engagement during the debate. Questioners should be strategic in what to pose and when. Speakers should purposefully choose to take POIs and smartly respond to them. Typically, speakers will take 1-2 questions per constructive speech, but that is the speaker’s strategic choice.

--Importantly, carry things down the bench. Answer the arguments of the other side. Rebuild and develop your arguments. Engage in comparative analysis.

--Third speeches should focus the debate around clash points or key questions or key issues. Narrow the debate and offer comparative analysis.

--Reply speeches should not include new arguments. But, the speech should build on the third speech (especially in the opp block), identify key voting issues, and explain why your side has won the debate.

Be smart. Be articulate. Be persuasive. Take the opportunity to get to know other teams and debaters.

Policy and LD

I judge mostly PF and World Schools. But, I have continued to judge a smattering of Policy and LD rounds over the last few years. Now that you may be concerned, let me be specific.

Overall, I believe that rounds should be judged based upon the arguments presented.

--Clarity is paramount. Obviously, my pen time is slower than it was, but I do flow well. Roadmaps are good. Sign posting and differentiating arguments is necessary. Watch me. Listen. You will be able to tell if you are going too fast or are unclear. Reasonably clear speed is ok, but clarity is key. For most of my career, I was a college professor of communication; now I teach communication in high school. I strongly believe that debaters should be able to communicate well.

--Do what you do best: policy based or critical affs are fine. But, remember, I do not hear a lot of policy or LD rounds, so explain and be clear. Having said that, my area of research as a comm professor was primarily from a feminist critical rhetorical perspective. In any case, you bear the responsibility to explain and weigh arguments, assumptions, methodology, etc. without a lot of unexplained theory/jargon.

--Please do not get mired in debate theory. Topicality, for example, was around when I debated. But, for other, new or unique theory arguments, do not assume that I have current knowledge of the assumptions or standards of the theory positions. It is your responsibility to explain, apply, and weigh in theory debates. On Framework, please engage the substance of the aff. I strongly prefer you engage the methodology and arguments of the aff, rather than default to framework arguments to avoid that discussion.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--Last, and importantly, weigh your arguments. It is your job to put the round together for me. Tell a good story, which means incorporating the evidence and arguments into a narrative. And, weigh the issues. If you do not, at least one team will be unhappy with the results if I must intervene.

Finally, I believe that Policy and LD debate is significantly about critical thinking and engagement. Better debaters are those who engage arguments, partners, opponents, and judges critically and civilly. Be polite, smart, and even assertive, but don’t be impolite or a bully. And, have fun since debate should be fun.

Prasad Bhethanabotla Lynbrook HS

Neel Bhowmik Seven Lakes High School

Julia Bittencourt Poly Prep Country Day School

Jonathon Black Seven Lakes High School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 3:53 PM EDT

About me: I am an undergraduate at the university of Concordia and am majoring in both Anthropology and Foreign relations. I debated for 4 years (mainly doing PF) at Katy Taylor Highschool. I do have experience with LD, CD, and FX/DX but am most comfortable in judging PF. As of 2021 this is my 2nd year being a part of the Concordia Debate Society. During my junior year in high school I amassed three silver bids and one gold bid to TOC and participated in nationals in PF for my Sophomore, Junior, and Senior years. During my senior year I experimented around and did some LD, IX and DX where I ended up competing in nationals for LD and earned a NIETOC bid for IX.

Email chain: Jonathonblack766@gmail.com

----Public Forum-----

- "Flay” judge I guess. About 90% of my decision is decided solely off the flow, but if neither side weighs or properly extends their arguments/warranting I will be forced to vote like a lay judge which means you probably won't like the decision.

- Don't spread unless you absolutely have to.

- Only read theory if an actual violation has occurred, if you run theory because you know your opponents can't respond to it properly, your speaker points will suffer. Severely.

-When reading overviews or when weighing always tell me beforehand where to flow them.

-I don't flow cross but will listen. If you think your opponent conceded something critical or said something that might be to your advantage make sure to bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow it.

----Lincoln Douglas----

- More of a traditional judge

-Tech over truth majority of the time-just make sure your arguments are well warranted

- Don't run a progressive argument and expect me to automatically understand what you're talking about, I'm fine with theory or K's as long as it's not frivolous.

- I am fine with speed as long as clarity is good-if you're planning to spread to the point where it's nearly unintelligible you should strongly consider sending me a speech doc

-Don't read blippy arguments/warrants, i.e. one liners and expect me to buy it

-Do flesh out your arguments with warrants and analysis

5 Things to Remember…

1st-Sign Posting/Road Maps- tell me the order and where to flow

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in the flow. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I will be upset. Road maps should be simple, anything longer than 15 seconds and I am starting your speech timer.

2nd-Framework

I will evaluate any arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3rd-Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4th-Evidence Ethics

"(https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/HS-Unified-Manual-2019-2020.pdf)

The NSDA HS Unified Manual: pages 29-33 outline the rules around evidence. I will follow it carefully. I will evaluate all evidence presented in the debate as if its veracity is a voting issue, even if that issue is not raised by the competitors in the round.

Here is my list of requirements with regards to evidence. Failure to abide by these practices will result in a loss and very low speaker points. This section is non-negotiable. If any of these are an issue for you, you should strike me.

All evidence exchanged in an email chain must be a cut card, with a full citation present. No links to websites and instructions to “ctrl-F”. No random chunks of text with no tag or citation. A cut card. There are many guides to cutting a card available on YouTube.
Evidence must be produced within five minutes of its request, provided there are no technical issues. Failure to provide evidence after it is requested will result in either very low speaks and a loss or me not evaluating the argument associated with the evidence.
The evidence you send must also make the argument that you made in your speech. In other words, do not lie about what evidence says, and do not power-tag cards.

I will not end the round to enforce this, nor submit my ballot immediately. I will flow the entirety of the round and write out a decision as if the evidence had not been read so that both teams can take my comments post-disclosure and improve. However, the ballot will clearly indicate if you lost based on bad research practices.

Here is a list of my preferences when it comes to evidence. These are things that I think would be great norms for the community to set, and practices that I will reward with increased speaker points.

Quote evidence directly when it is first presented. I will not vote against you for paraphrasing. But, I will vote on the paraphrasing theory shell if argued persuasively (and I am predisposed to vote for it).
Level an evidentiary challenge against opponents who are misusing evidence. I will reward correct evidence challenges with a W and block 30s. Please do this if your opponents are lying about their evidence.

If both teams fail to ethically represent evidence in the debate, no team will get higher than a 26, neither side gets to tell me that their evidence is better, and all arguments become your own analysis, without cards."

5th-Prep

Tell me when you start and stop prep, I am fine with flex prep as long as both teams are as well. If your timer goes off at the end of your speech and cuts you off, you may finish your sentence. I don't flow anything that goes over 15 seconds. ( barring extenuating circumstances such as wifi outages)

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Evidence ethics borrowed from Bryce Piotrowski.***

Bilal Butt Charlotte Latin School

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 11:03 AM EDT

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Madison Elizabeth Cahill Hire

Jiongyu (Joey) Cai Princeton

Jon-Carlo Canezo St John's School

Baolong Chai Seven Lakes High School

Dakota Champagne Walt Whitman 8 rounds

Kelly Chancey JR Masterman 8 rounds

Nilesh Chander American Heritage Broward HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM EDT

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

Manraj Channashetti Brookfield East

Ashvin Chheda Centennial HS

Pramod Chivate Princeton

michael chu Hire

Ann Cimmino Regis High School

Kathleen Clarke-Anderson Ridgewood High School

David Coates Edina High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM CDT

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Joshua Cohen Newton South High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:35 PM EDT

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Jason Collins Hawken

Last changed on Sun April 24, 2022 at 5:32 AM EDT

I competed in mostly Congress and extemp in high school, but I dabbled in PF. I also have a tiny bit of Policy and Worlds experience. Since graduating high school, I have judged locally in Northeast Ohio and on the Circuit (for Hawken), mostly in PF and LD but also a little Congress, since Fall of 2018. Here are some thoughts; I often update them after a tournament if something stands out to me.

Congress:

I flow Congress rounds, and I expect you to treat it like a debate event. I won't rank you if you're not a good speaker/presenter, but you also won't rank if you're not a good debater.

The top people on my ballot will need to do a few things:

1) Know your place in the debate. Are you giving a 1A or 1N? Set up the issue and relate it to the bill. Early-Middle of the round? You can give me a new point or two, but make sure you're refuting (and, for the record, just name-dropping somebody doesn't count as refuting). Late-middle? You should be mostly refuting. Last? Crystalize, summarize.

2) Show me that you're versatile. All other things equal, I will rank the person that gave an early and a late speech (see Point #1) higher than the person who gave two early speeches or two late speeches. That being said, I will probably think more of you if you give two late speeches vs two early speeches, because I think refutation is more impressive than a canned speech.

3) This line appears in my paradigm for every debate event I judge: You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much.

4) Impact.

5) Be good at answering questions. Be good at asking questions. Do both things consistently.

6) Don't be a jerk. I'm not going to describe what being a jerk entails, but you know it when you see it.

I'm also more than happy to rank POs, and I do it often. I judge the PO in the context of the round, and will rank anyone (often highly) if they maintain control of the round and are fair and quick. I really can't give more detail than this, but you know who's a good PO and who's not.

PF:

Full disclosure: I loved PF in high school, but I've cooled on it a bit as a judge for one reason: I cannot stand the debates that come down to cards, args, and impacts that don't clash or aren't weighed. There is too much talking at each other that goes on in PF, to win you need to make sure you clash and tell me why you beat your opponent. You'd think this goes without saying, and I guarantee that many of you reading this think you don't do this, but I promise many of you will. I need you to do impact calculus. I need you to tell my why your card is better than your opponents' if they clash. I want to do as little work as possible, so clearly tell me why you win. Also, don't extend through ink--this tends to be something PFers struggle with a lot.

Framework is important, but winning framework doesn't mean you win the round. You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much. Impacts are important, I want to see weighing and impact calc. I like to vote on impacts. Tell me a story in FF about why you win.

For the record, I flow and can handle speed. I won't be happy if you spread, but short of that I'm fine. I love CX, but I probably won't flow it, if there's something important bring it up in your speech or I likely won't weigh it. I won't ever call for a card unless you tell me to and tell me why; if you tell me to call for a card and there was no good reason for it I'll be unhappy.

chris cox Flintridge Preparatory

Jeremy Cressman CR North High School

Sarah Culpepper Newton South High School

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:38 PM EDT

PF:

My background as a debater is in parli, and that tells you a lot about my philosophy: evidence matters, but logic/reasoning/narrative is what I'll remember.

WEIGH. Weigh and meta-weigh. If you only take one thing away from my paradigm, let if be this!

Collapse your arguments in summary/FF. Give me voters that bring out major themes. I love FFs snd summaries that begin with, "Here are the three most important reasons you should return an aff ballot," instead of "I'll do their case and then our case."

I don't love jargon-heavy arguments in PF. I do sincerely believe that PF rounds should be intelligible to an educated lay judge. I *love* a good progressive argument, though, as long as it's explained clearly.*

*(more information if you're curious: my standard for 'clearly' is, your opponents could make a reasonable refutation of your argument by thinking on their feet based on a reasonable HS-level amount of background knowledge about capitalism/racism/whatever, without having spent a ton of time studying theory/Ks in particular. I won't buy the response in rebuttal that progressive arguments are intrinsically unfair to competitors from small programs; I would buy the response that your opponents have not explained their arguments clearly and were tech-y enough that you can't reasonably respond without specialized knowledge.)

Speed is fine if you signpost well and your arguments are clear. (If you're making a complicated or subtle argument, slow down for that argument.) I won't read your speech doc, though. If I didn't hear it, you didn't say it.

If you're consistently interrupting your opponents in cross, I will ignore what you're saying when you interrupt them. Be courteous! Win on the strength of your arguments, not your aggressiveness.

Generally tech-y. Exceptions: I won't count it if you throw out an obviously objectively terrible response to an argument in rebuttal so that the argument's not officially conceded (that counts as "basically conceded" to me). I also can't bring myself to vote for arguments that are intrinsically and obviously offensive ("racism good").

-------------

World Schools:

Don't give me a PF/Policy/LD round! I really sincerely will base 40% of my decision on speaking style. Tech ≤ truth.

Matthew James Cupich Hire

Ana Czachor Ransom Everglades

Tenzin Dadak The Bronx High School Of Science

Ipsita Das Foothill High School

Albert Ding Thomas Jefferson HSST

Kendelle Durkson Durkson Pennsbury High School

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 10:10 AM EDT

Kendelle Durkson

Judging PF: 8 years

Competing in PF: 4 years

Current Occupation: Graduate Student (M.D.)

My advice to debaters is to take your time delivering nuanced and developed arguments instead of speaking at a superhuman speed to cover all of the contentions. I prefer big-picture arguments that are anchored in current data while also supported by an appreciation of the historical account/data. Specifically, highlight the historical trends + current consequences in your arguments and the data that supports said conclusions.

The role of the final focus is to recap the main arguments presented and reinforce why your evidence is the most relevant in comparison to your opponent's contentions. I prefer if debaters focus on the overall logic/fact sequence of the debate and how their own contentions are factually supported. Not spending too much time nitpicking a particular data point or opponents' card (unless particularly topical to the overall debate).

As for extensions of arguments into later speeches, I support the practice if the argument prevails due to superior evidence and presentation of that evidence. It is wise for debaters to not overload at the beginning of speeches because you can use later speeches to refine the initial contentions provided. As for topicality, the arguments definitely should be on focus and directly addressing the resolution. Additionally, I do not look favorably upon contentions that rely on hypothetical proposals to address/remedy/provide an alternative to the resolution.

Lastly, as for kritiks, I urge debaters to be cautious with overpopulating their contentions with perspectives from Critical Theory. Although I recognize the importance of systemic critique (and even encourage your arguments to be framed with systemic inequalities in mind), I do not want the arguments to become nontopical and overly lofty. As for flowing, I will hand flow all of the arguments and then follow through the debate with several bullet points of significant subpoints/counterarguments/etc.

As a judge, I prefer the argument over style. Granted, I insist that debaters respect each other while speaking, the rules, and the forum while presenting or cross-examining. However, the evidence and logical conclusions drawn in the arguments are what are most persuasive to me. I will not dash points for speaking slowly or any speech impediments-- I will dash points for incessantly interrupting opponents, being rude, or not participating.

In my opinion, if a team plans to win a debate on an argument, then that argument has to be extended in the summary speeches. I prefer if teams use the cross-examination/rebuttal to highlight fallacies and inaccuracies in the opposing team's arguments while using the summary to reinforce the evidence + logic of the supposed winning argument.

If a team is second speaking, I do not require that the team cover the opponents' case or answer to its opponents' rebuttal in the rebuttal speech. I think debaters should have flexibility in how they want to frame their speeches. However, I urge debaters to know I will remember significant arguments presented by the opposing team. So if something needs to be critically addressed or answered in either the summaries or rebuttals, I urge that team to use the time to adequately address the issues.

I vote for arguments that are raised during the grand crossfire because I believe each team should have adequate time to decide if they want to address those arguments. New arguments raised during the final focus is given much less weight because they are not addressed with as much scrutiny.

Zach Dyar Delbarton School

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 2:25 PM CDT

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com .Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

David Ehmcke Hire

Last changed on Sat December 5, 2020 at 10:53 AM EDT

PF:

TLDR:

Weigh

Please do not give me a line-by-line in Final Focus. If possible, I don't want it in summary. Write my RFD for me in summary and FF.

Signpost.

Please collapse. Good extensions and weighing requires this.

If you don't read warrant names in summary and FF, you probably will not win the round. The team that makes the best and most strategic extensions almost always wins, and dropping warrants irretrievably weakens your offense.

Don't extend offense that your opponent kicked unless you're extending a turn on it.

Cross-applications and grouped responses in rebuttal, when used sparingly and handily, can be useful.

I don't need a roadmap for expected strategies (ex. no need for "it's gonna be their case, then my case")

You are free to collapse grand cross if you'd like.

If it takes longer than one minute to find a (singular) card that is called for, prep starts.

(heavily drawing from the brilliant Mollie Clark throughout)

The Rebuttal
For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping, when necessary, and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts, with weighing at these levels when possible. Frontlining defense seems to be the new standard, and I think that that's a good strategy. Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I love a good overview. I loathe a bad overview.

Extensions
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the claim, warrant, and impact. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. WARRANT AND IMPACT EXTENSIONS ARE WHAT MOST LIKELY WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. You will not have time to extend everything, and attempting to do so shows a major deficit in your ability to discern the central and successful arguments in the debate. Part of the challenge of this activity is making smart decisions about what to extend and what to drop on the the fly.

Speed and Speaking
I tend not to penalize speed with speaker points. I do penalize for incomprehensibility. Make sure you enunciate and are clear so that your opponent can understand you. Efficiency, eloquence, extensions, and strategy in later speeches will define your speaks. Basically, go as fast as you want so long as you're clear. Lack of clarity welcomes penalty.
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. CX is not binding, but speakers may use concessions in CX as offense in subsequent speeches. I say CX is not binding to encourage an earnest conversation in CX, rather than constantly defensive, abrasive, or self-conscious exchanges. I will, however, nonetheless take a good response to offense brought in from cross by the opposing speakers seriously if they contextualize that concession and produce sound analysis that supports them.
Organization through all speeches is essential, and is especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible.

I tend to give high speaks in general. 28.3-28.5 is a pretty common/average score from me at tournaments that utilize one tenth decimals. I find myself usually giving 28.8-29.1 in strong circuit rounds, though I did come across an array of really remarkable speakers at Yale, Bronx, and Blue Key who scored higher. I will, however, strictly adhere to a points rubric offered by any tournament when provided. This may elevate or deflate my speaker points to an extent. At tournaments that utilized a tradition scale with .5 increments (i.e. Glenbrooks), strong circuit debaters tended to score at 28.5-29.5, with generically good speakers at around 28 and average speakers at 27.

The extra stuff: I studied English @ Columbia, where I spent a lot of reading/writing about poetry and other things, critical theory, and the history of esotericism. I competed in many circuit PF tournaments in high school and judged many in college. I now write about curation, museology, and the poetics of the museum as a Henry Evans Fellow "at" the British Museum, and work in the Capital Markets group at a corporate law firm in New York. This is to say that I may not be extraordinarily studied in the things most directly related to what we're doing in round. But! I have consciousness and subjectivity and am, therefore, more than qualified to be in round. Be thorough in your analysis and don't make assumptions. I'm excited to learn with you + I'm excited to watch you have fun. I want to take every measure to resist elitism/inaccessibility in debate, so let's mitigate it! Please be courteous to your opponents, especially when it seems evident that there is an imbalance in resources/access in and out of round. A normal circuit round is accessible to me, but it may not be for your opponents. Please accommodate + make the round as accessible for your opponents as possible. If it is clear that you are being accommodating and kind, your speaker points will benefit!

LD:

I have a mostly basic knowledge of how this form works, yet I've nonetheless found myself in the position of having to judge 20+ rounds of it. Essentially, my decisions will be better when debaters read their tags somewhat slowly, try to explain things as early and coherently as possible, and order/analyze my decision for me. If you make assumptions about what you think I already know, my decision will likely be worse. Also, shouldn't really need to say this, but you need to impact your arguments and signpost clearly on the flow -- no shockers here. I really like the kinds of conversations that tend to emerge specifically from LD rounds, but you may have to be generous and accommodating about some of the more idiosyncratic qualities of the style.

Specifics:

Speed: If speed is important to your style or strategy, roll with what is necessary for you, but I'd prefer you give me about a 3/10 if you put your speed potential on a spectrum, if that makes sense. Most importantly, I'd really like you to slow down on the following: tag lines, spikes, blips, theory interps, and advocacy texts. Note: I don't want to have to yell clear...like ever, but I might throw it in the chat if I need to (I also might not and then miss a lot on the flow). In general, I'm probably a judge that you need to send a case doc to.

Theory: Honestly, I've always been okay with theory. If it's ridiculous, I'm obviously not going to vote for it. Just be smart.

Framework: Framework debate is critical, usually. If it's important, spend time on this. This debate should also heavily determine how I evaluate the round. Make this clear for me.

Ks: These can end up being pretty neat, but like I said before, don't assume I know anything. Lean toward overexplanation. You are going to have to do substantial work situating the K into the discourse posited by the topic, and superseding your opponent's arguments with the K. I suppose saying something like this would also imply that I think topicality is a somewhat important arena to address if you are a K debater.

But don't get the wrong idea: I am amenable to K debate; probably more than most other judges! I just really want to understand what's being said, which I do think that I have the capacity to do (see above about my study of critical theory).

A note: Be ethical in your practice of K debate. It is going to be hard for me to vote for you if it seems glaring that you are employing K debate as an opportunistic strategy to win rounds. For example, there is no reason for a white debater to be running an afropessimism K.

Value and criterion: What even are these? Why are these? These are probably vestigial to LD, yeah?? Or if they aren't, convince me otherwise?

You will want to pref me if you are reading: Max Weber, Jack Halberstam, Judith Butler, Saidiya Hartman, Fred Moten, Hortense Spillers, Frank Wilderson, or Sylvia Winter.

If I didn't cover something in this paradigm, just ask me in round. I want to be as transparent as possible.

Speaks:

This isn't the important part. Generally, when not given a speaks matrix by the tournament that dictates how I give these, I'm gonna treat every round like it's a bubble round + give speaks based on who should break and who shouldn't. 29-29.5 is a good typical breaking score.

Please be respectful. Respect lends itself to better speaks.

Another note: If you are unhappy with my decision, know that I, unfailingly, vote for whichever debater was most persuasive. Even if you are totally convinced that you have made transcendent, pristine argumentation, clearly some disconnect or error occurred in round that prevent me from, well, achieving transcendence alongside you. This means it is absolutely essential, even if you are the smartest high school debater in the world, to communicate clearly to me. I can't vote on what I don't understand, and it isn't my fault as a judge for being unable to comprehend 20 arguments/minute or some extraordinarily clunky analytic on techno-capitalism etc.

I want to be included on all email chains de2365@columbia.edu

Zayne El-Kaissi Taipei American School

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 3:51 PM CDT

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

Nargiza Elmuratova Horace Mann School

Joshua Enebo The Blake School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:58 AM CDT

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

Adam Epstein The Trinity School

Christion Finch George Washington HS

Elijah Frazier Albuquerque Academy

Jefferson Patrick Freeman Hire

Ella Furman Chanhassen High School

Last changed on Tue March 29, 2022 at 5:32 AM CDT

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 TOC: I have not judged since the Bronx tournament, and I am in the middle of finals week so please keep that in mind!

If you have any questions or would like to add me to the email chain: ellasfurman@gmail.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.

Speaks:

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.

Ayanava Ganguly The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sat December 2, 2023 at 3:44 AM EDT

A little bit about me: I debated at the Bronx High School of Science for 4 years, where I was one of the captains of the PF team and broke at Gold TOC in my junior year. I am now a junior at Princeton University on their debate team as well. I consider myself a relatively flow debater, and so I will also be judging on the flow.

TL; DR

I am a pretty standard flow judge; if you debate well, both in terms of the technical aspect and persuasion aspect, that will make me happy. To take from my partner Tenzin Dadak's paradigm, the only equation you need to know is: Warrant + Weigh = Win

For the email chain and any questions, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Novices, scroll down towards the end, unless you're curious. Here's the long version.

Extended:

The way I evaluate every round is pretty simple- I look to weighing/framing first, and whoever I think is winning the weighing, I look to their arguments first. Then, if I think that there is a plausible risk of offense on that argument, I vote for that team- I don't even look at the other side of the flow. It's that simple, so it should inform you on what to prioritize in the round to get my ballot.

More things to do to secure my ballot:

1. Collapse. Too many times teams spread themselves too thin by trying to argue that they are winning every argument in the round, which makes it even more difficult to just win one; towards the later speeches, please whittle the round down to one or two major pieces of offense/voters for me.

2. Extend offense and frontline in summary and final focus. Pretty simple- if you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument still holds true even after their rebuttal, the likelihood is that I will not vote on it.

3. WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. Warranting, for me, is the most interesting part of debate because that is where your logical reasoning and understanding of the world comes into play- just asserting a statement to be true or just reading a statistic is nowhere near enough to make me believe your arguments. Please explain the reasoning behind each step of the argument- even though there are massive time constraints in final focus, please still include it in a condensed form.

4. WEIGH. This is probably one of the most under-appreciated aspects of debate, and to become a great debater, you need to be able to compare your arguments to your opponents and explain why yours are more important to consider in the round. Just saying "We outweigh on scope because we affect more people" is not fully fleshed out weighing; you need to give more reasoning and also compare the clashing weighing mechanisms in the round. Weighing makes my job easier, and will probably lead to you being more content with my decision.

Miscellaneous:

1. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION: Personally, I believe that a lot of progressive argumentation does not have a place in PF, and will always prefer topical arguments over Ks and theory UNLESS there is clear abuse. As for my position on some norms, I lean very strongly paraphrasing good, slightly lean towards disclosure not necessary, lean RVIs good, and default reasonability. I do not know much about this type of debate, so please slow down and explain it thoroughly if you do choose to run it in front of me, and I will treat it as any other argument. Trigger warnings are a necessity, and if I feel as though you are running this just to win an easy ballot against a team that obviously does not know how to respond, I will drop you- progressive argumentation is supposed to correct the flaws that are in this activity, NOT to be weaponized.

2. I base speaker points on your speaking skills and presentation AND on how technically sound you debate. Because of this, if the tournament allows me to, I will give a low-points win. I will start at 28.

3. Please don't be overly aggressive or mean in round; light-hearted humor is wonderful, but be wary of the line where it crosses over from being funny to disrespectful. Oh and also, please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That will automatically make me drop you- I have no tolerance for people who make the round an unsafe space to debate.

4. I am tech>truth, but not entirely. I will vote on any argument if it is well-warranted and well-executed in round, but as the argument becomes more outlandish, my threshold for a good response goes down and I am more likely to believe simple logical responses.

5. Please don't be egregiously poor with evidence- that just leads to really mucky debates and that would make me sad.

6. Please signpost- tell me which argument you are talking about, where in the argument you are, etc. This just makes it easier for me to flow the round.

7. Speed is fine, but don't go excessively fast (this means no spreading!!!)- if I need you to slow down then I will say "clear".

8. About crossfires- I fall in the category of people who really enjoy listening to cross, but anything important that comes out of cross that you think is necessary for me to take note of has to be put into a speech, else it will not affect my decision.

9. Please make the round enjoyable; then we can all have fun and that would make it a great time. This activity is meant to be both fun and competitive- please try to make it so.

10. ABOUT TURNS: Since everyone is turning to the idea of dumping turns on all arguments without any proper warranting, this section is now warranted. I despise blippy turns, so unless you spend >10 seconds on one turn AND extend an impact on that turn in that same speech OR weigh your turn in that very same speech that you read the turn in, I will think of it as blippy and I will be very sympathetic to the other team's responses. Other team, please point out that they are blowing up a blip. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR SECOND REBUTTAL TURNS. Tread lightly.

FOR NOVICES:

I do not expect too much from y'all; I remember when I was a novice myself I certainly would not oblige to what I have mentioned above. That being said, here is some of the clear stuff that would make the round better and make me happy:

1. Signpost in every speech- this is a good practice generally, and allows you to stay organized and me to understand what you're saying.

2. Give voters in the back half of the round- it is not enough to tell me why the opponents should not win; you need to explain why you win and why I should vote for you.

3. Warrant and Weigh- Give me the reasoning behind your evidence and why your arguments logically are sound, and then compare their importance to those of the opponents.

If y'all got through all of that, then y'all are some real ones. If you want any speaker point boosts, call the pro's contentions as PROtentions (+0.5 speaker points). Thank you for reading this- if you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts, and I will be happy to answer them. If you want to reach me, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Christopher Gearing Dripping Springs High School

Ethan Gelfer Horace Mann School

Raja Ghosh West Windsor Plainsboro South

William Greene Regis High School

Vietta Grinberg BergenTech HS

Gabriel Grodan Foothill High School

Last changed on Sat July 10, 2021 at 6:30 AM EDT

EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT. You can't win an argument if you don't extend it. If you don't extend your argument, it is like there is terminal defense on it. Frontlining your argument and then failing to extend it is a waste of time. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT.

TLDR: Think of me like a traditional PF judge/someone who has been coaching for 20 years. Quality>Quantity. Logic>Evidence

Experience: I debated in Public Forum for Valley International Prep. I quartered at the TOC

How I evaluate rounds: Your primary concern should be winning and extending your argument. That is a prerequisite to any impact weighing you want me to consider. Generally, I think most of the impact weighing teams do is fairly elementary and ineffective. I don't need you to tell me you outweigh on scope because you affect more people. I think link ins, short circuits, and pre recs are far more valuable than impact weighing.

Be Clear and Comparative: Want to make my decision easy? Implicate your responses. Don't assume I know if defense is mitigatory or terminal. Tell me, "This functions as terminal defense to my opponents case because..." Do comparative analysis. If you and your opponent read opposing evidence, tell me why to prefer yours. Is the author more credible? Is the study more recent or more comprehensive of all factors? If you outweigh on scope and your opponent outweighs on magnitude, tell me why scope matters more.

Want to make my decision really easy? Tell a clear story. If you have the stronger narrative, I’ll probably find a way to vote for you in close rounds that could go either way. PF is fundamentally a persuasion event - if you convince me your side is true, you’ll probably win the round.

Technical stuff:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline ALL turns and terminal defense on the argument they are going for. Defense isn't sticky. Any defense that you're going to read in final focus should be in summary.

Overviews?

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense (oUr tHiRd cOnTeNtIoN iS...)

Don't read it. I won't vote on it. I prefer actual clash to random DAs.

2) An overall response to their case.

Good idea

3) Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA.

Speed: Keep it under 225 WPM. Quality>Quantity

I’m logic >>>>>> evidence. You can win my ballot without reading a single card. I care about ideas, not authors. I will not evaluate a card without a warrant. The warrant can be either in the card or made analytically by you. Only evidence > logic if both teams have rock solid logic but one has evidence.

I’m tech > truth with one caveat - the stupider an argument gets, the lower my response threshold gets. That said, a response has to exist.

Take your opponents at their highest ground. Don't lie to me. If they responded to your argument, don't say that they conceded it. If they read a warrant or an impact, don't tell me that they didn't. That's lazy, disingenuous, and bad debating. You'll do a lot better by saying, "Even if you believe everything my opponents said, we STILL win the round," and then weighing your arguments against the best iteration of theirs.

Theory? Sure. Paragraph theory is fine. I don't need it in shell form. If you call for evidence and it's really miscut, I WILL vote on an evidence ethics shell. I default to RVIs and I think teams should be able to read reasonability responses.

Ks? Ehhh. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well.

Speaker Points: I will give speaker points based on your rhetorical appeal. Usually there are two different speaking styles that work pretty well. You can go the dominant route and be loud and confident. Think, "THE ROUND IS OVER." Or you can go the calm, quieter, confident route. Think, "The round breaks down pretty simply." Give me some alliteration or a catchy phrase and you'll probably get a 30. I probably won't give anyone below a 28 unless you explicitly do something I say not to do in my paradigm or say something problematic/offensive

Other Things:

1. I will disclose no matter what... even if it's against tournament rules (just don't tell on me). My least favorite thing as a debater was not getting any feedback or knowing the results of a round.

2. Please come to the round preflowed. If both debaters are in round, and you're wasting time preflowing, I'll take a speaker point off.

3. I'll only call for evidence if there is debate about what the evidence says.

4. I'll try to nod if I like/agree with what you're saying and frown if I don't. As a debater, the facial expressions of judges always helped me know what to go for and what to drop. I also just think that generally, reading the way people are responding to what you are saying and making adjustments when necessary is a valuable life skill, so I will help you do that.

5. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with or have questions about my decision. I think post-rounding will help you improve/understand my decision better and will make me a better judge.

If you disagree with any of these philosophies and believe I should be judging the round differently, tell me in a speech and warrant it. I'm open to creativity. For example, if you think that I should be evidence > logic or think I should not require frontlining in second rebuttal, and your reasoning is sound (and not well responded-to), I'll oblige

Emma S Guan Hire

Vincenzo Guido Regis High School

Laurie Guzzinati Summit HS

Kate Hamm Ransom Everglades

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Beck Hassen Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon August 1, 2022 at 8:59 AM CDT

I debated for Strake Jesuit from 2017 to 2021. Cleared at TFA State twice, got a silver bid, went 5-2 at Glenbrooks once, etc, but overall I'm no Roy Tiefer.

You are extremely encouraged to read theory or a k. When I judged LD, people actually took my paradigm seriously and read crazy arguments, so I hope you'll do that here. I also don't know this topic very well. Specifics on progressive debate are near the bottom of my paradigm. Auto 29.7 speaks (or higher) if you actually do read something unconventional. Here's some other ways to get good speaks:

Reading "cut card" theory (something along the lines of "debaters must not read cut cards"): Auto 30

Calling your opponents out for not extending impacts

Making any joke

Turning 360 degrees when reading a turn

Paraphrasing Case

Skipping GCX

Conceding a delink/nonunique to kick out of turns

Kicking case

Finding a way to mention Palau (Auto 29.3 or higher)

How to LOSE speaks:

Offtime roadmaps that are too complicated for no reason

Not extending impacts

Laughing too much during round when nothing funny is being said (don't be rude to your opponents!)

Saying “we outweigh on ___________” with zero explanation

Calling for more than 4 pieces of evidence

Asking your opponents "have you sent the card yet?" more than once: No more than 27.5

AFTER ROUND: I'm happy to disclose and give critiques, but only if y'all don't aggressively postround me. I used to think postrounding was totally fine but I'm new to judging so I won't be perfect. Please remember that I am literally not allowed to change my decision

bh9831a@american.edu for any inquiries.

Regular paradigm:

Debate is a game. Strategy is what makes the round fun. I don't really care what arguments you read, as long as you win the argument on the flow. I'm not going to be one of those judges who says "ohhh yeah i'm tech over truth but if your argument is dumb my threshold for responses goes down haha" because if they say that then they're really truth over tech and kind of a lay judge.

Specifics:

SIGNPOST!!!!! Also number your responses/arguments, helps me know where to flow which means I'm more likely to make the right decision

First Rebuttal - No rules. Read a new contention, who cares. I love a ton of DAs or turns, but they NEED warrants and analysis. I always got super annoyed when teams read a ton of 5-second turns and won off of them simply because the opponents weren't even given a warrant to respond to. Also paraphrasing is highly encouraged.

Second rebuttal - This speech needs to address to everything from first rebuttal. If something goes unmentioned in second rebuttal, it's conceded. Also if you're gonna collapse you have to do it here, don't leave your opponents in the dark before first summary

Weighing in rebuttal is fine, but don’t do it too much because it means you don’t have enough real responses. I love weighing overviews and stuff like “if we win our case we win the round” but spending too much time on weighing in rebuttal will show me that you don’t actually know how to respond to your opponent’s arguments. There are exceptions to this, like if there's framework involved, but that's my general thoughts.

Summary - First summary must extend everything that could be in final focus, even defense.

Most importantly, extend impacts. I’m pretty tough about this because I lost a bunch of rounds during my sophomore year over winning the flow but failing to extend an impact. If your opponent doesn’t extend an impact in first summary, you could stand up and just extend your case and an impact, frontline your case, and say “they don’t extend an impact,” and you'll win. No impacts = no offense. If neither side extends impacts, I presume first speaking team.

Grand Cross - Skipping this is extremely encouraged.

Final focus - yeah same thing as summary

Weighing - I guess on this issue I am different than most "tech" judges. I think weighing is overrated. Every judge says they loooooooove weighing then they don't vote on it. The reason why is you can have flawless weighing on every level of the round but if you drop one piece of terminal defense, you lost your case so your weighing becomes useless. I had just 4 rounds in high school where the judge voted off weighing. It's not that important most of the time. The reason why is because in almost every single round, both sides don't win equal access to their offense, so weighing isn't needed for a decision because one side always has a better link chain. So focus on the path to the impact, not comparing them.

Most impact weighing is redundant, unless both sides win their links into their impacts, in which case it can make the difference of the round.

Link weighing is defense. Also, if your opponent drops something, it becomes 100% true in the round, so therefore it has 100% probability. I am inclined to vote on probability weighing that says something along the lines of "they dropped it so it's 100% true, but their case has defense on it so it can never be 100% true."

Most of all, I love prerequisites and short circuits. These are easily my favorite arguments in debate and I made them a lot in HS. The great RJ Shah taught me to look at all the arguments in the round and see if you could connect any of them to garner more offense, and doing that always seemed to surprise judges and win more rounds. Going beyond surface level offense and defense is quite impressive.

Other unconventional debate positions

I love watching frivolous theory/k debates. You can run (almost) any type of these arguments. Just win it like any other argument. Similar story with impacts goes here - if a k doesn’t have a role of the ballot, it’s not a k. If theory doesn’t have “drop the debater” I can’t vote for you off of it.

- I won’t listen to “drop the argument” shells, make it fun and read drop the debater. It's like winner takes all!!!

- I will listen to paraphrasing theory, but I'll also listen to "cut card" theory. I believe paraphrasing is a good norm in debate and reading cut cards is a waste of time. So if you'd like to read a shell that says debaters should paraphrase, do it. Even if you lose, I will give you double 30 speaks just for being bold enough to read the argument.

- I won't evaluate identity k's

- You don't need to wear a mask. A lot of people have told me they're just wearing it so that they don't get a shell read on them. Don't worry because I will drop any team that reads something along those lines with the lowest speaks I'm allowed to give. Nobody should ever be penalized in a debate round for their decision on whether to wear a mask, and feel free to do so if you'd be more comfortable.

Evidence

Please stop calling for so much evidence. Trying to be perceptually dominant by calling for 7 pieces of evidence after your opponent's constructive and then asking them every 30 seconds "did you send the evidence yet?" when they clearly haven't won't work on me. This is a very rude and condescending strategy. It might work on lay judges, but I'm gonna dock your speaks if a) you call for more than 2 pieces of evidence after any speech or b) you ask "did you send it yet?" more than one time. If you can't find the evidence, that's alright (most of the time), just make a logical analysis that says the same thing. As I said, debate is a game, and you are just as much a part of it as some random author from the Washington Post.

I will not call for cards. It's interventionist. For example, if a team says "omggggg their evidence is bad pls call for it" and the opponents don't contest that claim, I am not calling for it, because you won that evidence contest on the flow just like how every other argument works. If you do call them out for bad evidence ethics and they push back and say "no the ev is good pls call for it," I'm still not calling for it. If you're making an indict, tell me what specifically makes the evidence so bad. If you're contesting a team's indict of your evidence, then tell me what specifically makes your evidence good, or why your argument still stands without it. Evidence weighing should be more common in debate and I'll go with the team that best defends their claim rather than calling for the evidence to decide for myself.

Serena Healy Summit HS

Javier Hernandez Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Thu November 4, 2021 at 1:26 PM PDT

2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League

2018- present CSU Fullerton

email chain- javierh319@gmail.com

Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR and don't leave me shooting darts please.

Overviews really help me/you out unless they're longer than the debate proper-be concise.

Prep- Prep ends when doc is sent out or the equivalent of that. Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.

Spreading- speed is fine-go at it if thats ur thing. this shouldn't be exchanged for clarity/emphasis, and ultimately, persuasion. My face tends to be pretty expressive so use that to ur advantage.

Cross Ex- Humor is much appreciated so long as it doesn't offend ur opponent. Attack the argument not the debater.

I generally err on the side of tech over truth. However, too many buzzwords are kinda annoying and don't mean anything if you dont impact/flesh them out. I won't evaluate concessions for you unless you do it first.

Policy Affs- Spent most of hs reading these- read them at will. Internal link work and framing is crucial.

Performance/K Affs- Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does and why it should precede a traditional endorsement of the resolution (vs framework). Presumption arguments are some of my favorite arguments. Being untopical for the sake of being untopical is sooooo not the move. Even if i think that ur aff is the most interesting/entertaining thing in the world, I can resolve that with speaker points. Offense. Offense. Offense.

Framework- Go for it. Slow down just a tad. Procedural fairness and education are impacts, I'm usually more persuaded by education but fairness is fine too.While I'm usually more persuaded by fairness as an internal link to something else, enough impact comparison can resolve that if ur not down with the former.

Theory/Procedurals- Go for it. I'm not one to love hearing theory debates but will vote on it if you do the work. These can get really petty. Usually not in a good way. Condo is probably good PICs probably aren't. Don't let that dissuade you from saying otherwise because I also love hearing pics and multiple advocacies. I'm a 2N if that is relevant for you.

DAs- Make sure to flesh out the internal links. Winning uniqueness wins direction of link debate. I prefer hearing isolated impact scenario(s) rather than a generic nuclear war/extinction claim although u can totally claim that as ur terminal one. The more specific the link the less spinning the aff can do, the less intervention I have to do, the higher ur chances of winning are. I find it hard to believe that there can ever be 100% risk probability but if the CP solves 100% of the aff you're in a much better spot.

CPs-Resolve questions like how does this solve the case and is this theoretically legitimate if it becomes about that. If you wanna be noncompetitive, you do you but be ready to justify that.

Ks- Tbh I would much rather judge a robust debate about the intricacies/consequences of a traditionally political action vs a less-than fleshed out k debate. Links to the status quo and not the aff are awkward. Generally speaking, im probably down for ur thing. Regardless of me being familiar with ur authors or not-do the work. Framing is super important. Does the alt solve the aff? let me know. You don't need to go for the alt to win

Random/Misc

-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink

-know where u are losing but make it fashion

-dont be a jerk

Arul Iyyavoo Cambrian Academy

Charlie Jackson Edina High School 8 rounds

Akhil Jain Dougherty Valley High School

Komal Jain Centennial HS 8 rounds

Surendran Janarthanan Bethesda Chevy Chase

Camila Jaramillo North Broward Preparatory School

Last changed on Fri October 15, 2021 at 12:55 PM CDT

about to restructure paradigm. sry its messy.

Cami (she/her). I debated PF for three years. Currently a second year at the University of Chicago. Paradigm copied from Alexis Huang shoutout to her!!

- My wifi tends to lag so PLEASE speak SLOWER. If you go too fast I might not catch stuff.

- Please don't take hours to find your evidence. I understand that sometimes your internet connection might slow down your evidence finding process but if you're taking way too long I'm not going to be happy. Keep your evidence organized!! I will probably call for cards, especially in close rounds.

Ok now on to how you can win my ballot...

Things I like:

Weighing!!! Please weigh!!! If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to do my own weighing which you probably don’t want.
Warrants. Explain and flesh out your arguments. Don’t just read a blippy turn without any explanation and expect me to evaluate it at the end of round. Extend your case warrants and links in every speech (first rebuttal exception but try to cross apply/weigh since it works out in your favor) or I will not vote for your argument. While less important for me, if you have a large claim, specifically one that implies a trend, card it!!!!
Collapsing. Going for an argument or two in the second half will help make your life and my life much easier. Quality over quantity. Be clear about what you're collapsing on
Frontlining. Since summaries are 3 minutes now, first summary MUST frontline turns or any offense at the very least (second rebuttal should at least do the same).
Decorum. Debate is a high school extracurricular activity. Please be nice to your opponents before, during, and after round. They are a fellow human; I take your composure very seriously. Save any rude comments for the bus or hotel or whatever. I will have no compunctions over tanking your speaks if you are being petty or rude.

*** If you’re extending a card, please don’t just say the card name. I tend to miss card names so tell me the argument you’re extending!!!!!!!!

Things I don’t like:

Spreading. I can usually keep up with speed, just not spreading!
New in the 2. Please don't make new arguments in final focus. You're just wasting your time. I'm not even going to flow it.
Bigoted arguments. I will drop you immediately and tank your speaks
Theory:if everyone in the room (including me) knows whats going on at a normal speed (or doc if its imperative) no need to run a shell i've never ran theory so just explain everything
K’s: I’ll try my best to evaluate them. I’m not super familiar with them so if you do run a K, please flesh out your explanations and tell me why I should evaluate it over other arguments in the round. If you run one, you should be collapsing on it or else I will drop you for using it as a cheap way to win.
Postrounding. PLEASE DON'T DO THIS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Once I make a decision, I stand by it. Asking questions is FINE, but trying to change my mind is not.
Miscut evidence. Most likely I won't call for evidence unless if you tell me to or if you go for it and it sounds really sketchy. And yes, hate to break it to you, but I will drop you for miscut evidence (even if you win the debate) :) sorry not sorry! Strike me if this bothers you!
Do not micromanage the other team. I trust everyone to keep their own time, and the team keeping their own prep knows their time better than the opposition. It is very condescending and will make me not like you and tank your speaks.

A FEW OTHER COMMENTS:

1. I'm not currently coaching hence I don't even know the resolution. Don't assume I know stock arguments because I don't, so explain your logic well.

2. Any concessions must be extended in the speech directly after whatever crossfire said concession occurs.

3. I strongly prefer for second rebuttal to frontline, but won't consider anything not covered dropped. Also second speaking team start collapsing in second rebuttal

4. No offensive overviews (new contention pretty much) in second rebuttal, but weighing overviews are really really cool. I will default to a framework/overview (give me warranting though) if its not responded to, and consider it very strongly when making me decision.

5. Debate should be fun. I enjoy puns or any references to astrology or Mitski.

6. Any questions or concerns feel to contact me at camijaramillo@uchicago.edu

7. Read content warnings.

8. flex prep is OK

9. if ur running us hegemony. warrant why its good. same w china bad

10. if ur running extinction or any high magnitude low probability arg-- and the opposing team isn't also running the same type of arg-- spend more time on impact evidence than usual. i evaluate prob and strength of link higher typically, so do more work to gain your ground in this type of arg. some framing early in the ground would be advised. i'm not opposed to these arguments, you'll just need to do a bit more work to gain my ballot

Dhamodaran Jayabalan Dougherty Valley High School

Saumya Jhaveri Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Sheikh Jobayar The Bronx High School Of Science None

Andrew Jones Thomas Jefferson HSST

Makayla Jordan-Diemler Kickapoo High School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 2:01 AM CDT

Background

I am a speech and debate coach at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing speech and debate in some capacity for 11 years. I am versed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum mostly, but can keep up in a policy round.

Lincoln-Douglas

You must win the value-value criterion debate in order to win the round. I am a stickler for time management, so make sure you divide your time wisely in each speech to attack each argument with an emphasis on weighing values and value-criterion. I would like Key Voter Issues from both Aff and Neg in their last speeches. I will vote against spreading in an LD round due to auditory processing issues.

Public Forum

I prefer the 1st rebuttal to be fully spent attacking your opponents' case instead of using it to circle back around and re-build. It makes it less confusing. I like clear, offensive voting issues in the final focus.

Policy

I can follow a quick policy round, but warn me beforehand. I prefer analytics over cards and/or explaining why one card is better than another with logic or analytics. No "Refer to author B to cross apply to author C and D." I won't follow that because I don't have a photographic memory for evidence. If you're spreading, make sure to say your taglines very clearly or slow down so I can catch them. Provide a clear roadmap before and during each speech. If you do not tell me where to flow something, I will absolutely NOT flow it or vote on it. I prefer a full document for each speech with each argument typed out. I know that's annoying, but it ensures that I can follow your arguments even if they're fast or confusing because I have trouble with auditory processing. I like out of the box arguments if you have constructed them fully. I'd rather listen to something crazy and mentally engaging than the same old thing. I understand 90% of policy terms, but it is more convincing to me if you can explain them in your own words and explain how they play into the debate. It helps your ethos if I know you know what you're talking about.

Chaya Kamchetty Lynbrook HS

Laura Kane Regis High School

Paul Kane Regis High School

Michael Kaswan Princeton

Tyler Katz The Quarry Lane School

Michael Keane Regis High School 8 rounds

Yatkwai Kee Lambert High School

Azima Khan Pine View School

bharat krishnan Lynbrook HS

Last changed on Mon October 11, 2021 at 5:59 PM EDT

Hello,

My name is Bharat Krishnan and I'm a student at Duke University. I have been a national circuit PF competitor for 4 years and I qualified for the Tournament of Champions in both my junior and senior year. Having competed in the past, I know how nerve-racking and anxious tournaments can be, so I encourage all of you guys to relax and not to stress at least during the rounds that I am judging you. I am very familiar with PF technicals and I flow rounds, but this does not mean to entirely rely on high tech strategies that are overloaded with PF jargon and it definitely does not mean spread. Coming from a school with a small debate program, I don’t enjoy when teams use their advanced knowledge of PF to gatekeep the activity from others since Public Forum was literally a format created to be open to the wider public. Likewise, while I will be able to keep up with you if you choose to use tech, I would very much prefer it if you kept your debate jargon to a minimum and to speak at a reasonable pace. At the end of the day, PF is about arguments, research, and logic and it should not be about how much you know about the PF format. I also expect everyone to be respectful to each other, but a little bit of aggression in crossfire is expected.

Content Preferences

Please re-warrant your contentions in summary and final focus because if you simply tell me to extend some random card name (author, year) without explaining what that card is, I won’t have any reason to do so.
I don’t usually flow crossfire so please bring up any points that happened in crossfire in a main speech for me to count it as an argument
Please extend defense in summary definitely and if you can final focus as well.
Please weigh. This should seem obvious but it’s incredibly easy to forget in round.
Collapsing in Summary or Final Focus is great since it's easier for me to vote for you off one fleshed-out argument than two half-baked ones.
I don’t usually call for cards so if a card is contested, please just recommend that I look it after round in one of your speeches.

Logistical Preferences

While I will be keeping time, I prefer if it competitors could manage their own time and to stop speaking when their time is up so I don’t have to interrupt speeches
You do not have to ask if I am ready before a speech, just assume I am
I give high speaker scores so unless you say something openly racist, sexist, or unnecessarily offensive, you should be good.
I pretty much always disclose so please just wait a few minutes after round for me to make a decision

Overall, just have fun and relax. Don’t take rounds super seriously and just try your best. Good luck guys!

Sophia Lam Poly Prep Country Day School

Estelle Lee La Salle College Preparatory 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 16, 2021 at 2:05 AM PDT

my name’s estelle and my pronouns are they/them.

this is the first time i’m even touching debate in 2-3 years. i have not done any topic research.

email: esjlee1128@gmail.com

i debated policy for northwood high school 2015-2018, mostly with policy arguments but prefer kritikal ones. generally i’m okay with most arguments, but my triggers are sexual assault and queer violence so please be mindful of that.

top lvl:

mostly tech over truth but there are certain truths that cannot be contested and cause judge intervention-don’t be racist/homophobic/ableist etc. i’m trying to be as objective as possible, but alt-right arguments aren’t going to go too well in front of me.

i’m okay with speed but clarity is important.

k aff:

give an explanation of what aff is solving for/mechanism of solvency. aff should be at least in the direction of the resolution-defend a methodology centered around the topic or it’ll probably be easy to lose me during fw fairness debates. i’m not too fixed on this issue though so don’t be discouraged if your aff isn’t about the topic-i do prefer methodology/affirmations over just critiques.

don’t throw around random jargon without explaining it, because i want to understand what it is i’m voting for in the round. this is especially true for high theory because i’m not very well versed in it (at all). also true for acronyms.

if you have a performance, make sure all aspects of the performance remain true to what your advocacy is (eg running a fem k aff and gendering someone is not a great combination)

fw:

fairness (structural and procedural) is an impact but i can be convinced that it’ll be an internal link to something greater. weighing impacts is very important in framework debates for me.

tva is an allocation of negative ground for a good stasis point of debate.

i feel like the aff should be using parts of the aff to leverage offense against the interpretation of the neg. you read the aff, so you should use it.

examples of why your model of debate is good makes it easier to win. if you talk about a debater becoming a supreme court justice, it could be a way to weigh why normative debate is good (or bad)

extend your interp+answers to we meet. Be cognizant of the line by line.

theory:

i don’t think disclosure is the best theory. i’ll vote on it (maybe) but it’ll be an uphill battle for the ballot.

i’ll vote on cp theory.

condo is good but the k shouldn’t link to the cp.

generally good with permutation theory.

it’s more convincing when there’s actual in round abuse but i’ll vote for potential abuse as well.

slow down on your blocks.

if the neg wins its interp and that the aff doesn’t fall into their interp, the neg wins.

don’t drop reasonability.

have voters in the shell.

definition comparisons, qualification comparisons are good.

caselists are important as well as why your caselist is preferable

“nah” is an acceptable answer to t-rvi

keep flows clean and don’t put all your line by line on the overview. examples of experiences/history makes your k more compelling for me. have impacts/explain your theory of power if you got one/contextualize your links to the aff and explain your alt.

cp:

have a net benefit, solve, i don’t buy object fiat cps

answer the perm

da:

have impacts and clear internal links- evidence comparison is good

weigh impacts

Anna Lembke Hire

Last changed on Thu November 5, 2020 at 1:09 PM EDT

I debated four years of public forum debate in high school for The Altamont School and now do APDA at Brown U.

I consider myself to be a really normal judge and don't have any really interesting demands, but here are some things that can help guide how you take on the round!

1) PRE-FLOW: please preflow before round! I will not let yall do it in the room if the round should have started already.

2) EXPLANATION: contextualize cards; explain why they are important and how they support your point/ interact with your opponents case. not doing this makes it really difficult as a judge to understand how you want the round to play out and usually leads to forced intervention

3) 2ND SPEAKING TEAM: you gotta cover turns in 2nd rebuttal. if you don't cover turns then it is offense for the first speaking team.

4) 1ST SPEAKING TEAM: you can extend defense from first rebuttal to final focus but pls try to have some in first summary. I expect at least some defense in 1st summary, especially since there are 3 minutes for the summary now.

5) WEIGHING: even if something is "clean-dropped" you still need to weigh it. I will have a hard time voting on any argument (no matter how cleanly extended) if I am not sure why it's important.

6) ARGUMENTS

A)if you are making an argument about harms to countries that are viewed as "developing" by a western hierarchical perspective, or discussing in your case or in weighing, please be respectful and don't make your own uncarded analysis about the struggles these countries have. I would also prefer not to hear weighing analyses about these countries that mention anything about "these countries have so little" etc.

B) if you are running an implementation/process of getting the bill to the public argument, do so at your own risk. I generally do not find these arguments persuasive or topical, and chances are that if your opponent says I should not evaluate those kind of arguments in a debate round I will drop it from my flow. An example of this is "the united states should not pass ____ because it would be torn up in the courts/loaded with riders."

C) if you are running an econ argument, please be sure to explain it really well in extensions in ff and summary. in my experience, econ rounds are the most difficult to judge because of clarity problems in link extensions and warranting, so make sure you spend time explaining it!

7) EXTENSIONS: don't extend through ink. interact with the argument you are responding to and dont just say "my opponents dropped ___" when they really did not. Frequent issues with extensions through ink lead to lower speaker points and a worse round :(

8) EVIDENCE: I will call for cards you tell me to call for if they are highly important to the debate round. I will also call for any card that seems too good to be true. Evidence ethics is very important and I will intervene if I catch faulty evidence

Rebecca Lembrino-Crowe VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 6:30 AM CDT

I will not flow any theory/topicality, plans/CP's. I'm okay with speed, but as this is PF I don't want you to spread. I love impact debate and good clash, as with any debate, and signposting is important. This event has had problems with academic honesty and if you are caught in round lying about a piece of evidence then I cannot vote for that specific argument and will dock your speaks. Please include the links in your cards. I will be checking cards, especially ones that define your impact, if you have cut a card to change the intent of the author I will no longer flow that card and you will lose that impact. When extending ensure to extend the whole impact of your card, these impacts should be weighted using an impact calculus.

I love good clash and evidence-based argumentation. Be nice, this is a debate, not a fight. The more in-depth explanation the better I want to have a well-rounded understanding of what I'm voting for. Keep in mind I don't want to have to do the work for you, it's your job as the debater to tell me how to vote.No more than 3 off, I think LD should be about in-depth argumentation and not attempting a time suck on your opponents.

Speaks

I'm okay with spreading so long as you're clear, I will only say "clear" once and if I am still unable to understand you then I will cease flowing.

Plans/Cp's/DA's

Detail is important and explanation of links and real-world implementation. Please don't run a CP if the Aff isn't running a Plan, also I need framing to vote on a DA with an Aff with no Plan.

Theory

I have the smallest threshold for Theory, I really need in-round abuse and impact for me to vote for Theory, running three theory shells to overwhelm your opponent then dropping them in the last speech will be counted against you if your opponent points this out. I won't vote on disclosure Theory.

Kritiks

The basic Kritiks, i.e. Biopower, Neolib, etc, I understand, but I still want an explanation and an alt. if you're going to run something abstract, please make sure that you paint a clear picture of the world the Kritik encompasses and how the alt is achievable.

Hongchao Li Interlake HS

Klil Loeb Lexington HS

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 4:39 AM EDT

my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com

I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.

SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM

PF Paradigm:

- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.

- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.

- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.

- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.

- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.

Some little things:

- I'm fine w speed

- Time your own speeches and prep

- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches

- I love unconventional arguments

- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me

- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)

The debate is about you so have fun! I'm chill with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!

LD Paradigm:

I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.

- do what you want for the most part i don't care if you just tell me why i should vote for you

- Tech > Truth

- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.

- I like K's. I ran K's.

- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.

- I like theory

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote

- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.

Good luck:)

Esme Longley Durham Academy

Last changed on Fri October 15, 2021 at 9:17 AM EDT

Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending McGill. I use she/her pronouns. really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.

Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!

Also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3

Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc

Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.

Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:

1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case (People seem to forget to do this often). Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.

2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.

Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters

Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)

If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing

3. SIGNPOST

i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.

4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.

As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.

5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.

Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)

6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat

IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation

You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?

ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS

I believe that prog args are a way to change the debate space and make it a better place for us. This means a) I'm really uncomfortable voting off "friv theory", especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so if it feels like your theory is an EZ path to the ballot to trip up an opponent, I'll usually try not to evaluate it as much as other arguments. basically, the more friv the theory is, the more u need to make sure ur opponents are ok with it. i know that sounds super objective, i'm sorry, but rounds where high level varsity teams who have the privilege of going to camp and resources run theory on teams who don't have those resources are unfair and make me uncomfortable. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID - b) if there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of something u think is important and you explain that in your theory, progressive args are fine with me. I never ran Ks/ theory as a debater, but I get how they work and can evaluate them, just explain them well ofc. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.

i dont like tricks much

I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them, but u have to warrant why im evaluating them ofc. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.

Other notes

I think every debater should watch this video.

If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.

Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.

I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise

Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.

Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.

Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.

I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.

I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.

I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.

calling me "judge" is annoying

Please send me a speech doc @ esmeslongley@gmail.com if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.

I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.

Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!

Fun stuff

I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you

- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")

- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)

- Reference Beyond Resolved

- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.

- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh decently with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal

- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine

- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ kate bush (I LOVE HERRRR)

- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.

- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case

- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?

Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.

I will take off speaks (-.1) for

- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)

- If our star signs are incompatible

- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.

I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!

Grace Luckett Walt Whitman

Teresa Luo Westlake

Mark Mabie The Nueva School

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 11:28 AM PDT

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Isabella Martin Flintridge Preparatory

Last changed on Sat November 19, 2022 at 9:31 AM EDT

Nothing will lose my favor or interest faster than a debate on the rules of debate. I appreciate well-researched cases and strong link chains, but I find spreading to be borderline intolerable. I want to see unfavorable points negated with elegant use of evidence and logic. Attempting to dominate a round with jargon and technicalities overshadows the sharing of ideas and the ability to learn from one another, which in my opinion, flies directly in the face of and casts a shadow on this art form. That being said, don’t be afraid to bring attention to outright abusive argumentation - just be prepared to back up what you’re saying in a way that is just and truthful. I like your personalities to shine through and for your communication styles to have an individual essence. Please don’t make me have to judge rounds based on who is the fastest or trickiest robot. It truly breaks my heart.

Manage your own time so that I can pay attention to what you’re saying. You may a timer that I’ll be able to hear (or not), but if it goes off, complete your thought as quickly and neatly as possible without just dropping it. Any new points introduced after time will count against you. I’m a fidgety sitter and prefer to flow by hand so I’ll usually turn off my camera while people are speaking, so as not to cause a distraction as I flip pages and scribble away. Please let me know if you’d prefer I didn’t do so. Also, no off time roadmaps - you should be writing/speaking well enough to inform me throughout your speech of where you are and the points you're making!

I am a former HS debater (2002-2006, Morristown West in Tennessee), and I had the most success in Public Forum - although I also enjoyed Congress & LD (I don't think Parli was available on a HS level yet or I probably would have tried it, too). I didn’t get really serious about PFD until about halfway through my high school speech career, and by my senior year, it was my main event. That year, my partner and I won both our NSDA (formerly NFL) National Qualifying tournament, and our state’s local organization’s championship. These accomplishments remain the highlights of my time in high school - not just because of the affirmation and recognition of my effort, but because of all the time spent and memories made with my teammates and closest friends along the way. I had tremendous passion for and gratitude toward Forensics, and I tried to embed that into my approach. I always prided myself on my relaxed, easy going, evidence and logic based, and respectful but fun speaking style. Remember that most of your judges are not former debaters and that you have an enormous opportunity to educate adults and maybe even change their minds about some things when you communicate effectively and in an accessible manner - consider the Ancient Greek foundational communication philosophies of logos, ethos, and pathos.

My favorite thing about judging is getting a glimpse at the future leaders of our nation’s government and workplaces, and you all give me a tremendous amount of hope. Thank you for your participation and congratulations to all of you, always, for your hard work and boldness in showing up for yourselves and your teammates today!

Abby Martucci The Bronx High School Of Science None

Elisa McCartin Walt Whitman

Last changed on Sat September 18, 2021 at 1:50 PM EDT

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

Sheetal Mehta Seven Lakes High School

Noah Mengisteab Delbarton School 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 1:15 PM EDT

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Ravishankar Menon Lambert High School

Khegan Meyers The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Mon January 17, 2022 at 2:45 PM EDT

Did PF for 4 years at King High School, now attending Emory University in ATL.

Please add me to the email chain/google doc (I prefer google doc): Khem6th@gmail.com

If both teams agree, I will give 45 seconds of prep time instead of grand cross (taken simultaneously by both teams after summary, does not get added to individual team prep time).

Feel free to postround me, I don't really mind since it makes me a better judge and my decisions more clear. My decision, as written, will not change.

Pretty standard PF flow:

- Warranting is big important – cards shouldn’t do all your work

- Second speaking team should at least frontline turns in rebuttal, I will put less weight on new frontlines made to defense in Second Summary (meaning a blippy response/backline in final by 1st speaking team will be adequate)

- Anything in Final has to be in Summary, except weighing for either team and unresponded defense for 1st speaking team

- I will only vote on things that make it into final focus, I work backwards on my flow

- If there's no ink on the link chain, you can use blips to extend it in final focus, but try to keep it cohesive in summary.

- Please collapse

- Explicit weighing (jargon) and explanations of mechanisms

- I prefer more probable, low severity impacts over less probable, high severity impacts – the best thing you can do is provide historical examples

- Speed: I prefer well-warranted, conversation-paced debate. If you are to go fast, keep in mind that I flow on my computer and can type like max 80wpm when I have text in front of me, so don’t go mad fast else I’ll miss stuff

- I will vote on the easiest path to the ballot

- I do not care about cross, make it fun, anybody can talk if they want to

-"Are you tech over truth?" - to some extent, I will evaluate an argument I know to be false if its not responded to but this doesn't mean that you should skip warranting just cause its on the flow. Like other judges, my threshold for quality of responses goes down the more out-there an argument is.

Progressive arguments:

- General:

I do not have a lot of experience with progressive argumentation (this means probably argue util for a better ballot). If you want me to vote on progressive arguments, please give me explicit explanation of what the link is and good explanation of why the impact comes first. I don’t really like unwarranted “moral duty” arguments but warranted and explained moral weighing is fine.

- Kritiks:

With Kritiks, I have little experience with them as well – if you want me to vote on a Kritik, I need really defined role of the ballot arguments of why my vote makes a structural change. I don’t understand a lot of K lit so please make it as if you were talking to a friend of why something in the system needs to change and less like you’re in front of a well-versed policy debater.

- Theory:

I have a little more experience with theory than general progressive args and Kritiks, but normative arguments need very good Standards and Voters/Impact for me to vote on it – I generally like undisclosed, paraphrased (heathen statement right?) PF but I’m open to good arguments on that or on other norms. Also, I do need you to go slower and present an actual flowable shell.

Evidence Ethics:

Please do not take any longer than a minute to find a piece of evidence, and if you are having technical issues finding a card please just say so.

Evidence should not be misrepresented, whether its cut or paraphrased. I will read evidence as its written, not how its cut or tagged, even if it’s not brought up by your opponents – I think it encourages lazy research practices and abuse of PF rules.

This being said, I likely won't call for a card unless it is a) pivotal in my decision, b) its veracity is contested and important, or c) if both teams read opposing evidence and none gives a warrant of why their's is better

Speaks:

- I think speaks should be based off the pool, so no set rules on scale

- If you make the round fun for me to judge, or if I laugh, you and everybody else in the round will probably get higher speaks

- I don't listen to cross, so do whatever you want really

- I appreciate competitors being nice to each other and friendly, it makes the activity more fun for everyone. This event, though competitive, should support a learning environment with a community so treat your opponents like you would your friends in conversation :)

Misc:

I don't have an onboard camera for my computer, and its a hassle for me to use the usb plugin one. I likely won't have my camera on.

Yall gotta rock with the oral rfd ❗️❗️

Manvendra Mishra Lynbrook HS

Tim Missell Lambert High School

Aamir Shamim Mohsin Hire

Arjun Renju Nair Hire

Josephine O'Brien Hire

Last changed on Fri November 19, 2021 at 3:29 PM EDT

Add me to the email chain: josephineobrien922@gmail.com

Note for Glenbrooks

Hi LDers! I will be judging you. That being said, I have only ever debated in PF and I am a PF judge. That means that I cannot judge advanced theory or spreading. If you don't read my paradigm and run a progressive argument and leave me sitting there attempting to flow and wondering what the heck is going on, that's on you! That being said, I've always loved LD and I'm excited to judge y'all. Most everything else in my paradigm still applies to you, so read through it.

Background:

Hi! I'm Josephine (she/her/hers). I debated for four years for Hunter and graduated in 2021 — I'm taking a gap year before I start college at Columbia University with a dual BA at Sciences Po. I was my team's captain as a senior and, although I took a step back from debating due to virtual tournaments/college apps, I'm familiar with current circuit norms and argumentation. You can treat me as a flow judge, but that doesn't mean that you should tell me to "just extend" an argument or spread.

tldr:

You can win my ballot with the two Ws: Warranting and Weighing. Be nice.

General Guidance:

Please signpost and weigh. I'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. If you want my ballot, weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more!
I'm okay with moderate speed. If I can’t make out what you are saying I’ll say “clear” twice.
I am tech over truth, but if you are racist/sexist/etc i will drop you with low speaks. That also means that you NEED to use content warnings if you're discussing a sensitive topic. And, this should go without saying, but respect pronouns.
Speaks start at a 28 and go up/down from there.
Please, please, please warrant — tell me WHY what you're saying is true, even if so-and-so from the Brooking Institute says it's true!
Don't be mean in cross — that doesn't make it a fun round for anyone.
PF: Write my ballot for me in the final focus! everything in FF should be in summary. All offense for me to vote needs to be in the second half of the round.
You need to extend a clear link chain with warrants and impacts if you want me to vote on it. You would be surprised how many teams neglect to do this.
If you want me to vote on a turn, it needs to be given the same care and attention as case offense. What that means: your links need to be extended, you need a clear and warranted impact, and you need to weigh that impact. I will not vote on a turn that is nebulous or not implicated. That being said, I have nothing against voting off a turn (I personally loved running turns) — just run it well.
I will raise my hand once you're at time and stop flowing after a ~5 second buffer
I love cool and innovative strategies — run them in front of me!
I’m fine with theory if it checks back for actual abuse BUT I am not too familiar with progressive arguments (I personally never ran them). Therefore, if you’re trying something progressive, run it in paragraph form, don’t spread, and explain it clearly.
LD: if neither side has offense at the end of the round i will presume neg, but please don't make me presume anything (please extend!). PF: I'll presume first-speaking team.
Wear whatever makes you comfy.
Try to make me laugh! I show all my emotions on my face so you will know if you say something funny.

Zoë Kaufmann legit taught me everything I know about debate so if you want to learn more about my philosophy, you can check out her paradigm here. You can assume that anything in it also goes for me.

Have fun! innocent And if you ever want to chat about debate or life, feel free to reach out via email, Facebook Messenger, or Instagram (@j0sephinefrancis). I know as well as anyone that debate can be stressful and scary but I am here for you and so proud of all of you! Instead of spending your last few minutes before your round stress-prepping, watch this!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwcJsBYL3o

Dennis O'Donnell Regis High School

Evan Ortiz NSU University School

Last changed on Sat February 26, 2022 at 3:33 AM CDT

Hi,

Update for St. Mary's. Do not spread. Do not read progressive arguments.

My name is Evan Ortiz, I debated for 4 years in Texas, and was ok. I now compete for the University of Texas at Austin and help coach for NSU in Florida (Speech only tho because I live for extemp). Feel free to reach out to me if something in my paradigm confuses you.

Please add me to the email chain evanortiz64@gmail.com

Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safer or better experience for you. I love debate and I want to make sure rounds are a place that you can love, too.

Judging Philosophy:

- I won't look at a card unless you tell me to do so!

- I am not a super big fan of paraphrasing. I feel like this is a big ethical dilemma in PF and I am just not a fan, please just read cut cards.

- Impact calc is the easiest way to win and the most important part of PF. Just please explain your impact clearly with a fully supported link chain to it and weigh and you will the round. I expect clear weighing in the round and it is beneficial for y'all to do so, if you don't weigh I may default to my own mechanisms and you may not like that. ---> you final focus should just write my ballot for me

- 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st in some sort of way... if not? Go off I guess the summary better do work then.

- Summary needs to extend defense - you have time now :(

- summary and final focus should mirror each other ALWAYS. Please don't make me play a game of I SPY on the ballot, it will much easier for you to win if you as a team know exactly what you are going for and mirror each other

- I would really prefer clear full extensions. I don't simply want just "extend Jones 12" because that doesn't really tell me much. Instead, extend Jones, the warrant, and any necessary offense from it. Explain to me why Jones is important.

- warranted responses >>> blippy card dumps

Miscellaneous Nonsense

- Have fun!!! Debate after all is an activity first, competition second. Please have fun in the round.

- Be nice to each other. Sass is sometimes cool, but know your lane and stay in it.

- Run whatever you want, you do you!

*Regarding the notion from above. Honestly, do not read theory in front of me. The only interaction I have had with Theory in PF is larger schools reading disclosure theory on relatively small and or inexperienced schools. I don't want to see it. Regardless of my debate background with a small school, frivolous disclosure theory is not educational for the round nor fun for me to judge. If you choose to run theory, it better not be disclosure theory. If it is, and you are from a large school with the institutional knowledge to engage with theory and you choose to read it against a small school or inexperienced opponents, you will not like the outcome. It is mind-boggling to me that this is a norm and will not vote for it. If you want to read other theory, I would prefer it not to be in shell form - just give me the jist. I don't like voting off of theory technicalities, so make it at least accessible. (Paraphrase theory is meh but if you can prove a violation then sure why not)

Abraham Paik University School

Last changed on Sat December 16, 2023 at 8:05 AM EDT

most recent update:

If both teams agree, I'm more than happy (MORE THAN HAPPY!!) to cut all prep time for 6 additional minutes of grand cross, and speaks will be rewarded very heavilyif this happens :) (For LD, I'd happily cut all prep for an 8 min crossfire between 2nr and 2ar)

I reward humor in speaks.

Mid America Cup 2023 UPDATE: please send all cases (and cut cards) to apapap1919848jj@gmail.com prior to constructive for me to read along w you.

I kinda don't care about cross in tech rounds. If something important happens, say so in a speech.

For prog stuff, I'm really pretty out of the loop in terms of jargon. Explain it well.

Hi I'm Abraham (he/him).

If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible to anyone in any way, please let me know and we can work on something together :)

I evaluate the round primarily off of the arguments made.

Properly extended links, warrants, and impacts (with good frontlines, as necessary) that are clearly compared against - and weighed over - other arguments (on link, warrant, and impact level, also as necessary) will win my ballot. (Proper weighing isn't just saying "probability" or "magnitude." It must be directly and specifically comparative)

That being said, I'm also a fan of "big picture" and "narrative" style debating. Make your arguments fit a clear theme, or have a theme around your arguments: make and frame the round (or at least your arguments) about a bigger idea or concept. Boil your points (and narrative) down to a concise, simple, and memorable message or thesis (if you can, aim for a unique narrative as well). Also, weighing your narrative makes it all the more persuasive. [To be clear, I think narrative debate won't necessarily decide who I vote for: if you win the narrative but lose all your arguments, I'm probably gunna drop you - but, if you win your arguments and can make a good, effective narrative as well (while not abandoning the flow), I will like that, and give higher speaks. Narrative can also be helpful for winning close rounds as well.]

I also a sucker for clever bits of rhetoric, such as well thought-out and executed analogies or witty chiasmus (to be clear, good rhetoric alone won't win you the round, but it'll help your speaks). Funny quips are also good.

Be smart and strategic. You can go fast if you want.

Also if something is dropped in the speech after it is read, it is dropped for the round. So, if 1st Rebuttal reads something, 2nd Rebuttal drops it, 1st Summary extends it as dropped, it is TOO LATE for 2nd Summary to read new responses (2nd Summary CAN weigh against it though). That being said, new stuff can be in 2nd Summary if it's "advancing the debate" in my opinion. So, if R1 says something, R2 responds, S1 rebuilds/responds to what R2 said, S2 can further "advance the debate" on said thing, giving new analysis / evidence to what S1 said in response to R2. This is rather rare though, often the debate doesn't get to that level. If that does happen, and S2 says new stuff that specifically responds to S1's response to R2's response to R1's response, F1 can advance the debate even farther by saying new stuff in response to S2's new response (which is in response to S1's new stuff, which responds to R2's new stuff). So yeah, new in final is ok in this case. In theory, that means that F2 can say new things as well if it's responding to new analysis from F1, but this is such a specific and small case that I doubt it will happen. Generally, rather than continuing to go back and fourth like that on some response by adding new stuff or warranting, teams should weigh the response against the case/frontlines given, or weigh the case/frontline against the response. It's cleaner and easier.

Also, if one team makes a poor extension (misses links or whatever) and the other team points it out in the speech after, that counts as pretty terminal defense, e.g. if 1st Summary extends case poorly, and 2nd Summary points that out, then that arg is pretty sufficiently responded to in my view. It's also too late for 1st Final to try to extend fully to make up for 1st Summary. BUT: if 1st Final does try to revive it, 2nd Final should point out the improper extension made in 1st Summary.

**PLEASE don't be afraid to ask me any questions 1) before the round, about anything covered or not covered here, or 2) after the round, about anything in my decision or evaluation of the round - just as you all want to improve as debaters, I want to improve as a judge. (Please postround me. I do not find it disrespectful. Please postround. PLEASE!)

Other stuff that other judges probably have that might be helpful for you as a debater:

- i'M a FoRmEr Pf DeBaTeR

- Go as fast as you want. I'll let you know if it's too fast or unclear what you're saying.

- 2nd Rebuttal doesn't HAVE to frontline anything necessarily, but it's usually strategic to do so. If R2 speaker does not frontline anything on their own case, all the defense (and turns) is/are conceded, which basically means that their case is now perma gg'ed. Some rounds it doesn't make sense to frontline case though. Up to you to decide what to do in R2 that's strategically best for you in the round. Basically, if you wanna win case, you should probably frontline in R2, but it's not necessarily always strategic to try to win case...

- bE rEsPeCtFuL iN cRoSs -> meh I don't really care. Be aggro if you want, I was always kind of aggro in cross, don't be outright mean though - let them talk. You can push for concessions and stuff tho, or try to ask trap questions to put them in a bind. If they do concede something important, mention it in a speech - the first one that you can after the cross in which the concession was made (if they concede a contention in 1st cross, have rebuttal mention it - don't say nothing about it in rebuttal and expect me to value the concession if it's only later explained in summary)

- email chain or google doc is preferred.

- wear whatever you want in the round - I don't have a preference on whether you're in a suit or a t-shirt - whatever you feel comfortable in and helps you debate the best (for me, it was a suit lol, but my partner liked casual dress)

- If you get to round before your opponents and I'm also in the room (like one team and I are just chilling, waiting for the other team), you can challenge me to a game of online chess (probably blitz) on lichess/chess.com, you don't need an account to play btw. If you beat me, +.3 speaks. If I beat you, auto L20. Jk. If I win, nothing happens, if you win, slight speaks boost (you'll get more depending on how badly you beat me. If you crush me in a beautiful way, sacrificing your queen for some crazy checkmate pattern, I might award you up to +.8 speaks or whatever). If you also wanna just play for fun, that's cool too. [note: I'm not that good at chess, but I enjoy it, so challenge me and you can probably win some free speaks] [note: you can also still get a 30 without playing chess w me]

---

Please use a proper content warning prior to discussing potentially sensitive topics in speech. What that means:

1. Say, before the speech begins, a brief content warning statement (eg. "Brief content warning, this speech discusses nongraphic references to _____. We will provide an anonymous google form for opting in or out, as well as additional questions")

2. Send a link to an anonymous google form in the chat (or some other anonymous system, ideally not phone number). Provide not only a "opt in / opt out" option, but also a box for anonymous questions that could be used to ask for more specifics on something. State, however, that such questions will be answered out loud, unless specified otherwise. (You can make a link shareable google form in about 2 minutes. If needed, I can make one)

3. Wait until you receive "opt in" for every person participating in the round - BOTH opponents, and ALL judges. You can ask spectators to please leave the room if they would like to opt out.

4. If there is unanimous "opt in", say so out loud, and you may proceed with your speech. If there is EVEN ONE "opt out," please DO NOT proceed with your speech. If the CWed argument was a block, don't read that block, if it was a contention, read a different contention.

5. If you forgot to do this before your speech, and you started your speech, and realized you are about to make an argument about a potentially sensitive topic, please PAUSE YOUR SPEECH, proceed with the above steps, and you may resume your speech when all participants have answered, adjusting your speech accordingly. You will not be penalized in any way for doing this. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it.

Please follow these steps. Failure to follow these steps will make me unhappy, and potentially cause bad experiences for other members of the round. If you fail to do this, the bar for content warning theory is low, and I'll probably vote off it. Debate should be safe and accessible for all, no exceptions.

---

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION (feel free to skip this section if you're not gunna read some prog.)

I DO evaluate progressive argumentation. High bar though, must be done properly. If not, I’ll just look elsewhere, and you will have wasted your speech time. Be smart about it. Also, the same rules for extending regular arguments applies to prog too. If you want me to vote off of it, you gotta extend it properly and fully. If the other team calls out a poor extension, that's probably GG for the prog argumentation, unless perhaps you make some new prog warrants as to why it shouldn't be GG, and why I should change my judging philosophy. The bar for responses to that kind of prog ideas (ideas like my partner's summary extension can be sus and you should still vote for it bc XYZ) is pretty low - the other team doesn't have to say much for me to not believe the prog warrants for why I should let bad extensions happen. Oh yeah, that also means don't read new prog warrants in 2nd FF as to why your partner's bad 2nd Summary extension is permissible, it's too late lol. Even if other team doesn't make technical responses like "they dropped role of the ballot," if the prog team did, in fact, drop some crucial part to the argument, then I still probably won't vote for it (unless you give me prog reasons why I should vote for it anyway).

If you are going to read prog, let me know before the speech so I can get another piece of paper. If what you're going to do is really out there, feel free to ask me about it before the round starts, I can give you my opinions on it / if I know how to evaluate it.

I'm down for some wacky stuff - you could run some prog saying I should evaluate rounds differently - like, if you give good warrants as to why I should just not pay attention to their 2nd Final for whatever reason lol, and it's like uncontested, I'll probably buy it, given it's done in a good way, presented sufficiently early in the round. That being said, there are some things I can't do. I can't give double win or loss, as far as I know. I can't give you 100 speaks. (I mean maybe if a team makes a prog arg saying I should do one of those things, and then proceeds to tell me how to do it bc I'm dumb and don't know how to hack tabroom's code to let me do something like that, then maybe I'll do it haha). Other than that, I'm open to prog stuff relating other, less rigid parts of the debate, like maybe speech times or something.

Args for presumption are important if you want me to presume a specific way. If no presumption arguments are made and I have to presume, I'll probably flip a coin or have siri flip a coin. If it's your strategy to have the round decided on a coinflip, great! If not, make args to why I should presume a certain way.

ALSO: don't just dump unintelligible prog on some novices or something. No point. If you're like a senior and you can't beat a novice team on the flow without prog, cmon. (this is a little tricky because ideally everyone should be evaluated on an equal plane, but there's a pretty big prog disparity on the circuit. I don't want to say I'll drop you for running prog in bad faith, because I understand that prog has some clear strategic benefits, but idk. I guess if you're gunna run prog for the ballot, make it AS ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE for the opponents, ESPECIALLY if you know they may not specialize in this style of debate. I think we'd all prefer a good round over of a bad one, where the opponents are completely shut out from debating.

If you get prog run on you, and you'd rather concede the round to spend the remaining time to just discuss prog in general or discuss the arguments that the prog team read, with the goal of furthering understanding, that's cool with me.

ALSO: if you do run prog: be nice about it. If the opponents genuinely don't understand / are trying to understand it better, don't be mean to them. If you are, I might drop you just because.

ALSO: I reserve the right to intervene on / against any specific prog argumentation - like if someone makes an especially problematic prog argument, I may intervene against it. I also am not opposed to intervening and/or ending the round for reasons of mental wellbeing - eg: if a team asks me to end the round over a content warning shell, and I believe it is warranted, I will end the round.

Feel free to ask me questions about prog before the round. That being said, my knowledge and understanding of this style of debate is by no means exhaustive. I know there's a lot I don't know about prog.

Ulrich Palha Fort Lee High School

Lacrima Parau BASIS Peoria

Jasmine Park Genuine Learning Academy

Joanne Parker Cranbrook

Rupal Patel Dougherty Valley High School

Alessandro Perri The Blake School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

The most important thing to adapt to me: please make complete arguments. If you are not explaining things, you will be very frustrated by my decision. In all honesty, I think my bar on this is now well above the average PF tech judge, so adapt accordingly, at least if you'd like high speaks. I reserve the right to think about your arguments.

Background: I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I now compete in APDA and BP for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

My primary academic interests are related to insurgency, state violence, and terrorism. This does not mean anything except to say that I will be happy if you evince a nuanced understanding of these issues and be disappointed if you don't.

To be upfront: I have not judged PF in a year, nor have I done topic research in quite some time. I am still fine with speed and can evaluate a flow, but it may behoove you to spend just a little extra time on explanation instead of presuming I know the nuances of arguments even if you think they are obvious.

General: tech > truth, I guess. I am really uninterested at this point by arguments that are facially untrue or implausible, but I won't intervene since I know debaters don't like that. I will reward smart debating-- in-depth analysis of actor incentives, clever technical setup, genuine impact comparison, and analytics that point out internal flaws in silly arguments-- with speaker points. I like to see debaters that are knowledgeable about the topic and the world at large. I do not like to see debaters that crow about their opponents missing a "hidden link" or doing weighing to the effect of "prioritize strength of link because it leads to less intervention".

Mechanics: defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st, any speed fine but I won't flow your doc, you must bite defense in the subsequent speech to which it is read to kick turns, I will not evaluate defense you read on yourself, no offensive arguments, you'll lose if you're rude (seriously) or if you cannot produce evidence. Feel free to post-round as much as you like.

Progressive debating: I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think the vast majority of critical authors have deeply wrong and ill-advised views and I would like to see more teams make that argument. I have no priors on theory. I do think that cut cards and disclosure are good but I'm well past the point of caring enough to intervene. Fairness bad arguments are illogical. The only arguments I will actively disregard are IVIs or aggressively frivolous theory; these are an abomination, please refrain.

Any questions-- ask. I do actually have opinions on PF, I just don't think they are particularly relevant to how I judge anymore.

Zach Perry Cary Academy

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 5:23 PM EDT

The following paradigm is fairly exhaustive because my investment as a judge is equally (if not more) important than what y’all do as competitors. If my feedback is subpar, the work and effort you all put in is a waste. Ultimately, the following novel is not meant to intimidate, but rather to aid in how the debate can be elevated. I look forward to being a part of the art of communication through debate in each round and best of luck!

Tl;dr I have AuDHD so like, use that to your advantage ^.^

General Background:

I am the assistant debate and forensics coach at the University of Richmond, where I also obtained a B.A. in Philosophy. I have over ten years of experience as a competitor and four as a collegiate coach in six styles of debate (PF, LD, Policy, Congress, Parliamentary, and Long Table) and over a dozen speech events. I competed with and against international teams that are a part of the CIDD and German circuits and am a member of the VAFTDC (Virginia Association of Forensics, Theatre, and Debate Coaches). Additionally, I have/had involvement with Future Problem Solvers, Model UN, theatre, and improv. Given the scope of my background, a lot of my preferences concentrate on the art of rhetoric and communication within debate rather than a purely technical focus (truth>tech). That said, I try to also respect the difference between norms and rules given the breadth of the debate realm and appreciate the evolving structure of the debate realm.

Feel free to e-mail me any questions: zachary.e.perry@gmail.com

Main Paradigm:

Kindness is key. The purpose of debate is to expand upon ideas with good faith intentions and find ways to coherently communicate and critique nuanced topics. That said, there are certain truths that are generally held to be accepted as true (things should be logically consistent, all people should be treated humanely, opinions cannot replace facts though can be considered as informing perspective and bias, etc.). Especially given the current political climate, a healthy level of skepticism and grace should always be extended without resorting to ad hom attacks or broad sweeping generalizations. This guiding principle is something that can be utilized throughout our existence, which is what makes debating so valuable as a life skill.

I am sick of wasting time during round calling for cards in varsity rounds. I heavily suggest utilizing disclosure theory which means if your case is not presented in full and a card is asked for, I will run prep if it takes longer than 15 seconds.

Extinction arguments (re: nuclear war) are a losing battle and while it is not a guaranteed loss, know that we live in a world where that it is so statistically unlikely, it does not provide a compelling argument. Death is not a threat if it is inevitable, it's the suffering that we fear. If you're going to run existential cases, you're better off pointing to cyber warfare, anti-capitalism/totalitarianism, economic downfall, or human rights cases since that has more tangible, concrete impacts. Yes, death is a major factor to consider, but I don't lose sleep over dying in an all-out nuclear war considering that we live in a capitalist hellscape that makes existence make death seem like an escape sometimes.

Some things of note:

-Avoid personal phrases. Frame things as an objective pontification instead with “if/then” statements and “the affirmative/negative’s position claims…”

-Be honest about mistakes both in ownership and forgiveness. If a point is dropped, concede and find ways to move forward. Additionally, don’t take critiques personally and recognize the difference between norms and rules. It may impact the debate scoring or decision depending on how egregious the instance is. Debate is a holistically judged sport!

-Clarity is key. Making assumptions leads to a lot of miscommunication and though I may have experience in a lot of different backgrounds, I am human as well. Revel in the fact that you are the go-to expert in the room!

-Organization helps with everyone. Signposting and roadmaps are highly encouraged. Roadmaps are also more than just saying you’ll “touch upon the opponent’s contentions and expanding upon your own”. Being able to identify features of clash, impact calculus, voters, and what kind of debate it is (value, definition, evidence, contention, etc.) will help elevate the overall effect of presentation.

Other:

Case Sharing and Sources/Citations- It is not required to share the entire case with the opponent. However, it is in good faith to at least allow access to specific portions used and it is mandatory to share cards when asked. Though I do not like evidence shoving and card-based debates, it does not look favorable if you cannot provide adequate support of a claim. Sourcing is also important and when giving a piece of evidence, understanding the methodology and ideas of empiricism and epistemology are key in demonstrating an adequate understanding of the citations provided.

Speaker Points (from a 20-30 scale)- I rank on a bell curve structure that is fairly reflective of the indicated suggested ranking (poor, average, good, excellent, and outstanding). This may skew points in overall standing but also indicates that a score of 29 or 30 is truly earned. As long as the argument is clear (organizationally and orally), use up the majority of the time, are able to identify each necessary piece (value, VC, and contentions), the score should range from 23-27 based on other factors such as fillers (“uh” and “um”), dropped arguments, rebuttals, and overall ability to crystalize the argument. Rarely will I award anything lower than 22 unless the speeches are incomplete, there is a conduct issue, or the debate is entirely conceded. Conversely, scores in the upper echelon effectively demonstrate mastery of presentation (little to no fillers, solid stance and projection of voice, able to command the room without seeming too aggressive), expansive understanding of the topic at hand and evidence presented (clean links and warrant), and excelling at the art of rhetoric and argumentation theory via things such as voters, impact calculus, and word economy. Know that if you obtain a score of 28 or above, I am genuinely impressed!

DEBATE

Lincoln-Douglas:

Key judging elements I look for: Value/VC, Definitions, Framework, Theory, Analysis, CX, CBA

Plans, Kritiks (K), Fiats, and Theory- Though I recognize the validity (and growing usage) of “progressive” LD, I tend to follow a more traditional outline. I think plans and Kritiks (Ks) have their place as long as they don’t deviate too far from the topic at hand and provide explicit tie into solvency, inherency, and the overall framework/paradigm at hand. Your plan should also FOLLOW the establishment of contentions and general framework. PRE-Fiats also tend to be used in ways to derail the debate by completing sidelining the resolution at hand. POST-Fiats are totally fair game as long as it is still relevant and topical. The structure should not hinge upon a theory argument considering that the Value/VC is contingent.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you run a plan that indicates we should ignore philosophical/moral theories in favor of political and pragmatic ones (there is a painful irony within this notion) or appeal to theory as an end-all-be-all (save for very VERY limited exceptions), I will automatically dismiss your case. This is a particular problem because I have seen a butchered interpretation of some major theorists despite having good intentions. That said, it does no good to spread misinformation and accountability of knowledge is of utmost importance. In short, all politics is based off of theory, and using Rawls’ “original position” and “veil of ignorance” does not necessarily absolve you of that burden just because some antiquated dead white dude said it’s possible to be enlightened while conveniently ignoring the fact that We Live In A Society™. I also do not have the patience for Ks that purport a resolution being dismissed on the notion that it's inherently "racist, sexist, queercist, ableist, etc". We exist on a platform that is intrinsically rooted in privilege and if you're going to push an Oppression Olympics argument, no one wins and it defeats the purpose of debate. We all have something to learn through our own personal adversity and it is not productive discounting a person's opinion solely because they may be more or less privileged than you. Extinction arguments are also extremely annoying and offer nothing unique or interesting to the debate since it assumes a fallacious slippery slope scenario that is almost never rooted in reality. That said; use all of these suggestions at your own discretion. Remember, COVID still exists and has long term effects ;)

Framework, Paradigms/Observations, Disadvantages (Disads), and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)-

FRAMEWORK IS IMPERATIVE. If you do not give definitions, context, paradigms and/or observations, you leave the debate wide open for attacks or gaps to be filled either by the opponent or my own implicit biases. I will do my best to remain objective but if certain norms are expected, I will default to my own inferences of the topic at hand. Paradigms are important for context and should be given if the resolution is vague. For instance, is this topic Americentric or global? What is the status quo? Is there a timeframe? Though not necessary, those that include a sort of paradigm or observation within their framework generally tend to fare better. Remember what happens when people assume things :) Disads are also helpful when identified adequately for the rebuttal and rejoinder speeches. For me, CBA should be a general default when debating a topic. Debate is about exploring the nuances of the argument since most things are not black and white. Do not assume (again, there’s that word), my background in Philosophy means I favor a political or social case over an economic one though econ arguments do provide a good sense of impacts and concrete metrics. If one side demonstrates favorable merit and a cleaner link to the resolution at hand, it does not matter what flavor of argument is presented. I will vote and have voted for arguments that go against my own personal beliefs if/when they are conveyed well.

Flex Prep/CX Flow- I allow Flex Prep (shifting prep time for CX time) but only if both parties agree to its usage before the round starts through explicit consent. Additionally, I DO flow CX since I think it has a purpose in the debate and demonstrates a person’s ability to elevate the contentions. A good CX can make or break a round and help give additional points based on oratory skills.

Roadmaps/Signposting- Please use them and refer to the main paradigm section above.

Public Forum:

Key judging elements I look for: Definitions, Framework, Analysis, crossfire, CBA, well-composed rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches

The use of spreading, plans, and Kritiks (Ks) are antithetical to PF debate given the fact that it is understood as the most accessible form of argumentation to a layperson. That said, there should be heavy emphasis on analysis and warrant and not just evidence shoving. Given the rapid back and forth of this style of debate, the expectation is to be a kind of “mini-expert” of a topic with an intimate understanding of certain terms and elements related to the resolution and disseminated quickly. CBA is expected though not always necessary depending on the resolution. Use theory sparingly.

Definitions- these are imperative for framework. If you do not define the scope and context of this debate, it is impossible to create a basis for why the contentions uphold the resolution.

I DO FLOW AND HEAVILY WEIGH CROSSFIRES. The main appeal and, imo, fun part of PF is the “real world” aspect of having a rapid back and forth conversation. A person’s ability to adequately talk about a controversial topic with a level head means just as much as being “right” about a situation or topic.

Given how most constructive cases are prepared, the main weighing mechanism for me is how well people can utilize impact calculus (magnitude, feasibility, timeframe, and probability) and voters (evidence weighing, contention clash, definition debate) by the end of the debate. The best debates are those who are able to find the common thread and main clash of the debate (usually by establishing a CBA).

Rhetoric Scoring: I often award low point wins to team with creative or more personable approaches rather than stock cases because I think it's important to reward people who think creatively and critically rather than pushing a case that was probably cultivated through online forums/briefs or coaches themselves (let's be real here...). I don't care if you sound smart. I care if you soundaccessible.This is PF. If you want to sound like a pretentious nutwit (rightfully!) go do Policy.

Policy:

Key judging elements I look for: Plan building, heavy evidence usage, links/warrants/analysis

Policy, to me, is what the highest and most refined debate should be. Pulling from all other disciplines (the oratory, bill building, and procedural skills of Congress, the theory and analysis skills of LD, the evidence and case building of PF, and the impromptu style of Parli and Long Table). Any and all aspects of the above topics are fair game as long as it’s in good faith. Though policy is, admittedly, my least favorite and least familiar debate style, I appreciate the craft and some of my favorite rounds have been in policy though it is a beast to understand and an even bigger feat to master so hats off to those who compete in one of the most profound forms of debate!

Spreading- Please do not spread. The art of debate is about communication and a person’s ability to have an impressive wpm does not promote adequate expansion of complex ideas and is antithetical to the spirit of argumentation. I will doc points if I cannot flow properly due to speaking too quickly. If I cannot physically fully follow the argument, I cannot award adequate points.

Congress:

The quote, "Politics is perception" is especially true for this form of debate. The showmanship and ability to present a topic in only three minutes is a powerful tool that is heavily based on the speaking style and engagement with the entire chamber. The focus on evidence is not as important but I typically look for at least one source per contention. I only recommend one since I think that the quality of analysis is more important than the quantity of sources. Being able to address the bill or resolution specifically will also elevate the overall impression and score. Back and forth debate is obviously the ideal though as long as it's not too lopsided, I don't mind doubling of one side occasionally. As long as people are respectful and communicative without stepping on too many toes, I'm a fairly lax judge.

From a Parliamentarian's standpoint, being able to take up space confidently without suffocating the room is a delicate balancing act. Being eager to participate without stifling others is also key in the communal aspect of Congress. Efficient chambers are nice, but if the room becomes too tense, it sucks all the joy out of the event. PO scores tend to be a bit more inflated due to the extra burden of tasks though top scores almost always come from those who give incredible speeches.

Parliamentary:

Given the nature of Parli debate, it is understood that pretty much anything goes. The notion of this debate is meant to be elevated but also accessible so I don't have as many constraints considering the (assumed) maturity of collegiate level debate. That said, I do like to see a person's ability to merge the ability of a solid orator with that of a logical common thread. Though I try to remain unbiased, I will also be tempted to fill in gaps if references are made without adequate sourcing due to the nature of this debate.

QUOTE ROUND: I'm fine with either leaning into the resolution from a literal interp of a quote or a broader context of what certain norms and systems mean through theory and storytelling. Use your own discretion.

Other notes: I have a humanities degree so advanced econ theory and neuroscience is probably going to go over my head (though I will give it the good old college try!). International Politics is also not something I'm particularly well-versed in. I am but one human on a planet of almost 8 billion with over 200 municipalities. Please hold my hand through your thought process.

Speech:

General Note:

Though my first love was debate, I am a speech kid at heart. The variety and depth is vast and I don't claim to be an expert in any of these individual events. While I think characterization and textual analysis are key to making a piece "come to life", I also appreciate the vast amount of perspectives and lived experiences in how we understand narratives. That said, I am entitled to use my own discretion and I as an audience member have a role in your performance. If I am not engaged or not "included" in the process of creating this art, it will reflect in the score with reasons that should at least be acknowledged. My aim is not to crush anyone's creative spirit though sometimes certain artistic choices can have consequences that need to be considered (swearing, content choice, general presentation, decorum, etc). We're all human though accountability is of utmost importance.

Self-published pieces are... risky especially since the purpose of an "interp" is to interpret ANOTHER'S work. Though that isn't to say it doesn't come without potential reward. Be wise.

After Dinner Speaking (ADS): plz make me laugh ????

Communication Analysis (CA): I tend to find this event a middle ground of persuasive and informative that is pinpointing a specific event or speech at hand. I should be able to follow along with the topic if I don't have any prior knowledge while still being able to be on your side by the end of the speech in some way, shape, or form. This tends to be a really dry event so feel free to spice it up with a few jokes. I like to think of John Oliver, Contrapoints, and Lindsey Ellis as good reference points for CAs on topic areas.

Declamation: I don't mind if you try to embody the original intent or put your own spin on it but it should reflect the words spoken in some meaningful way. This event is the most text heavy so be EXTREMELY purposeful in delivery. I couldn't care less about physicality, just make sure to project.

Duo: My favorite event! This is probably the most theatrical so whether you make me laugh, cry, or just think a little bit more about life, give me a show! Physicality is key. Don't just create a character, BECOME them! Creative use of limited space is key and really try and create dynamic movement not only through your movements, but through the text itself.

DI: Duo... but solo

Extemporaneous: I recommend at least two sources per point to have a good qualifying score. That said, evidence pushing will only get you so far and I'm far more impressed by a solid analysis of the information presented. The expectation is that you're the mini-expert for 7 minutes and should be able to adequately inform me of a topic in the allotted time (within reason). That said, don't assume I know the context of the topic or that either of us are the smartest person in the room. The event is meant to humble us and designed to force us to appreciate complex topics that need to be handled with care. Hot takes are entertaining but may not always be effective. Use discretion.

Impromptu: I recommend no more than 2 minutes for prep for top speaks. I'm not entirely impressed by minimal note usage since it's a tool given to you for a reason. Careful about fillers and make sure to have some sort of methodical and cohesive narrative or thesis statement. If I suspect you're using stock stories and inserting the topic as a buzzword, I WILL immediately dock points and recommend disqualification if confirmed. This is not a prepped round and it antithetical to the purpose of the event and I consider it a form of cheating. I hate cheating.

Improvistation: Yes and... make sure it's funny :)

Informative: Make me think! I want to be able to take away at least one new fact from the speech. Though logos is the main focus here, there should be a heavy emphasis on sourcing and ethos as well. That said, evidence pushing only goes so far so analysis and warrant should carry your argument forward throughout the presentation. If I lose sight of the thesis, then the overall presentation falls with it. Make sure to establish a common thread and not make it too dry. There should be little to NO opinions in this event save for polls or other pertinent information regarding the event. My role is to learn about the topic, not be persuaded.

Original Oratory: No matter what emotion you make me feel, I should sense it to be genuine AND relatable. OO is one of the hardest because not every story is able to fulfill both requirements and is extremely subjective. I don't have any other feedback other than making sure the narrative is cohesive and follows some sort of the hero's journey. You are the hero, make me want to root for you!

Persuasive: Though this event is rooted in a lot of elements similar to informative, you should at least convince me to see the validity in your argument even if I don't think it's entirely sound from my own personal opinion. Pathos will also take you far here so definitely appeal to personal anecdotes or other emotional appeals that pair well with the logos and ethos elements in this event. This is meant to be a blended event and showcase your oration skills outside of just presenting an idea. Think TedTalk.

Poetry: Same as prose but, like, poetry, maaaan. I do permit passages from different languages! Just note that the work needed to convey emotion is harder, though not impossible! Please don't just sing a song ????

Prose: I'm literate. I love books. Words make me feel things. Bear in mind this event is less about acting and more about textual painting. I should be able to feel your characterization by your tonal inflection and wordplay and appreciate the unpacking of what the author intended blended with your own interpretation. I have a nuanced opinion about Death of the Author so don't assume I'm going to discount the context of the piece just because you have a new spin on it. Honor the work you're presenting, even if it means being subversive with the text.

Radio Broadcasting: All about the diction, inflection, and personality. This event is incredible because looks truly don't matter. I find the funnier, the better since most RB voices tend to be drab and have a grating sense of braggadocio that is off-putting. Larger than life doesn't have to mean phony so make it BIG but believable.

Storytelling: Pretending you're ACTUALLY giving this presentation in front of kids. Lean into the absurdity and silliness of humor. I want my inner child to be awoken!

Overall, I'm excited to be a part of the artistic process and look forward to hearing all of your pieces and speeches!!

Les Phillips The Nueva School

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM PDT

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Ravi Pinnamaneni Dougherty Valley High School

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 9:20 PM PDT

Hello All,

Background

I work in the Technology Sector in the Bay Area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and though I am quite novice at judging, I have watched a lot of rounds and have a good understanding of the format and logistics.

As a heads-up, I plan to take notes during the debate, but it is better if you treat me as a "lay" judge.

I have a good amount of general knowledge on the topics provided for these events, but may not know the specifics of your topic.

Preferences

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying, so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments more clearly.

b) Be polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Also, please note that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will not carry personal biases into the round.

I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me.

If your arguments are too complicated to be understood by the average person, then I will probably be less likely to vote for you.

Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.

If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know.

Good luck!

Pramote Piriyapoksombut Summit HS

Vishal Poddar Montgomery Blair

Greg Pratt BASIS Scottsdale High School

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:27 AM MST

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
I reject all extinction impacts
I reject all progressive debate
I reject kritik
If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
Excellent overview of Congress expectations.
PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf
Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

Ethan Ramos Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:53 AM CDT

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc

IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

Cyrus Rangan La Salle College Preparatory

Last changed on Mon January 15, 2024 at 12:06 PM PDT

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

Gerard Rem Horace Mann School

Chloe Ricks The Blake School

Last changed on Sat December 18, 2021 at 11:26 AM CDT

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

LD

Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

PF
- I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)
- I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well
- The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team
- theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
- Provide impact calc throughout the round
- I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
- CLASH IS KEY
- Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.
- Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.
- 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!
- extending over ink makes me very sad :(
Miscellaneous:
- Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points
- Please please please weigh your arguments.
- Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.
- please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time
- Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

Rehan Rupawalla Hire

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:11 AM PDT

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).
What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Peter Safirstein The Bronx High School Of Science

Charlie Schachter The Bronx High School Of Science None

Tim Scheffler Madison West High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:14 AM CDT

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Gavin Serr The Nueva School

John Shin Newton South High School

Bob Shurtz Hawken

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:12 AM EDT

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Sayeed Sidiqyar Brentwood High School

Sanjiva Singh Lynbrook HS

Adhi Sivathanu Foothill High School

Paul Sonn Hunter College

Nick Stares Bethesda Chevy Chase

Michael Stephan Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Evan Streams The Dalton School

Andy Stubbs Westlake

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Benny Sun Hire

Krishna Tadepalli Centennial HS 8 rounds

Serkan Tan Hire

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 12:04 PM PDT

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Yibing Tao Interlake HS

Dinesh Thandapani Lynbrook HS

Hugh Thompson Hawken

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 5:30 AM EDT

I coached Public Forum starting from its beginning in 2002 until I retired from teaching in 2011. I have continued on as an active judge: judging at the local, state, and national levels. Nearly all of my judging in recent years has been Policy but with Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum in the mix.

PF:

In the traditional spirit of Public Forum, the debate is best presented in a clear, understandable manner.

PF is a relatively short, quick-paced form of debate. Complexity is fine but be judicious. Stay focused and relatively succinct. Communicate well. I judge Policy, but spreading has no place in PF - at least for me. If I can’t follow what you are saying, well…

Base your contentions on reliable evidence. Draw conclusions using sound reasoning. Clash (of ideas) is great. Obnoxious, aggressive behavior, if it gets ugly, may cost a round.

Limited tag-teaming during crossfire is OK.

A strong final focus can often win a close round.

LD:

Questions worth considering are: What is good (or at least the greater good), and what form should it take in the real world? Philosophers have had a lot to say about this. But so does common sense. Consider me the man on the street who sometimes digs philosophers when they also have their feet on the ground. Using a good strategy can be a winner. Getting beyond philosophy and reason, within limits, emotional appeals can be persuasive.

Moral, ethical and philosophical considerations should be a foundation for your case.

Policy:

I characterize myself as a "Policy Maker Judge." I can handle a modest amount of spreading but don't overdo it. It's more effective to rely on the quality of arguments and evidence than on quantity. Substance counts and so does style. Limited tag-teaming is OK. It is a real art to be confrontational while also being genuinely respectful of your opponent.

While Kritiks are a worthy part of Policy debate, I have never found them to be a decisive, or sometimes even a relevant, factor in my decisions. For some judges they are significant so when there is a panel, feel free to use them. Just be sure to present a strong arguments that support or negate the Affirmative case.

Learn from your experience.

Do what you do best.

Enjoy the competition!

Andrew Thong Bergen County Academies

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 5:51 AM EDT

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Nicole Tommarazzo Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

Minhhy Truong The Kinkaid School

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 12:39 PM EDT

Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.

Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge

*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob

General

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.

DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.

CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.

K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.

If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.

1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.

2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.

3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.

4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.

____________________

Other notes:

Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.

Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.

Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.

Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.

Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

No Tricks

ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.

PF Specific Notes

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.

Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.

For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner arguments that are dropped on the flow unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.

Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.

If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.

All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.

Dhira Vaidya Dougherty Valley High School

Akila Varadarajan Lynbrook HS

Ramya Vijaya Ragavan Dougherty Valley High School

Raghav Warrier Hire

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 8:44 AM MST

TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me. . . please)

Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; senior at ASU studying Math, CS, and Econ.

Argumentation:

- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted

- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO

- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy

- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient

Structure:

- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus

- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded

- First summary should extend turns and key defense

- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do

- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it

- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn

- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one

Weighing:

- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick

- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"

- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary

Speaks:

- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)

Speed:

- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss

- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names

- If you plan on spreading...don't

Evidence:

- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard

- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to

Misc:

- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks

- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.

- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!

- Creative references to sports (basketball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket, F1, etc.), chess, or Kendrick Lamar will get you a boost in speaks

- Have fun!

Christian Watkins Madison West High School

Madison Wayt Hawken

Tom Wen Montgomery Blair

Chase Williams Taipei American School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM EDT

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Raz Winiarsky Horace Mann School

Shubo Yin Unionville

Andrew Young Walt Whitman

Last changed on Fri January 28, 2022 at 11:11 AM EDT

I debated PF all through high school, coached all through college, and am now coaching at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. My role in the round is to interpret the world you aim to create, and to that end you should tell me explicitly what it is you are trying to do. I stick to the flow as well as I can.

common question answers:

1. Anything that needs to be on the ballot, needs to be in Final Focus, and anything in final needs to be in summary.

2. The first speaking team should be predicting the offense in first summary that needs to be responded to, and putting defense on it then. This ALSO means that the second speaking team has to frontline in the rebuttal. Any arguments/defense that are not in the First Summary are dropped, and any arguments that are not frontlined in the second rebuttal are dropped.

3. Summary to Final Focus consistency is key, especially in terms of the relevance of arguments, if something is going to be a huge deal, it should be so in both speeches. You're better off using your new 3 minute summary to make your link and impact extensions cleaner than you are packing it full of args.

4. I will call for cards that I think are important, and I will throw them out if they are bad or misrepresented, regardless of if they are challenged in the round. sometimes when two arguments are clashing with little to no analysis, this is the only way to settle it.

As a note, I am pretty hard on evidence, especially as sharing docs is becoming more popular. If you are making an argument, and the evidence is explicitly making a different argument, I won't be able to flow your arg.

Speed is fine, but spreading isn't. I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link, but they have to link to the topic y'all, so they basically have to be a critical disad.

I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm really skeptical of how often that is.

Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.

You should pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!

Wendy Yu Horace Mann School

Hao Hao Yuan BASIS Phoenix High School

Ali Yusaf Hackley School

Quncai Zou CR North High School

Login to Tabroom

New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2021 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

Public Forum Debate Paradigm List

Judges