Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

I have previously debated Lay Debate in High School at the Varsity Level. I have minimal experience in theory and kritiks, but am more well-versed with plans and counterplans. I really like seeing crystallization between the contentions and the impacts. Furthermore, I hope to see a clear connection between the Value, Value Criterion, and contentions. I don't like seeing vague frameworks that aren't tailored specifically to benefit your perspective.

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

Nico's Bio:

I am a college student from Marshall University as a Yeager Scholar in the Slack Class of 2025, a member of the University Student Senate, and a coach for hire for debate. When I was in high school I competed heavily in Congressional Debate. While attending Oxbridge of the Palm Beaches, I was captain of the Congressional Debate team, had dozens of TOC bids, competed and finaled at Harvard University Debate, Emory Debate, NSDA, States, and NCFL Nationals #4 place, multiple chamber choice PO awards, and holding a ranking within the top 5 for NSDA points my senior year. Needless to say, when it comes to Congress, I am no lay judge and will rank accordingly, valuing a mix of data, logic, refutation, cross-examination, creativity, presentation, etc.

Nico's Contact Info:

Phone: (561)-704-7022

Email: raffinengo@marshall.edu

Facebook Messanger / Instagram: @nicolasraffinengo

Congress Paradigm:

What I Look for From Speakers:

• Argumentation in Speech: Claims are followed by logical backing (warrant), as well as data and an impact of why I should care, I don't mind the order you do this but it is a must to get ranked well by me. Reference or crossfire others in round showing why I as the judge or constituent should value your arguments over others. Also providing unique or non-stock argumentation will make you stand out, especially if a round is super stock-heavy in terms of arguments. Authorship and First Neg should take all the stock arguments as well as explain the bill well, as well as a bonus if they set burdens.
• Presentation of the Speech: Your intro and conclusion should be memorized as well as contentions. The good theming of a speech and creative aspects will make your speech more memorable. Keeping eye contact and using appropriate presidential movement keep listeners engaged, and show memorization of speech. Keeping pacing, tone, and vocal variety to highlight points can make your speech easier to follow.
• Crossfire: Good crossfire should refute or build something to the debate, I hate seeing softball, convoluted, or just questions that don't really contribute anything to the round.

What I Look for From Presiding Officers:

• Solid Control of the Round
• Quick Selection of Speakers and Questioners
• Providing a Google Sheet will Get Brownie Points from Me
• Gaveling Isn't Insanely Loud
• Explanation of Procedures is Good
• Understanding Roberts Rules

Public Forum Paradigm:

Speech Content:

• Constructive Speeches: Present your main arguments and evidence. Provide a clear framework for your case and establish the significance of your position.
• Crossfire I-II: Be respectful but firm with opponents, engage in questioning well, and tackle points on both sides well, use these periods to help set up your following speeches.
• Rebuttal Speeches: Respond to opponents' arguments, point out flaws, and reinforce your case. Engage in strategic argumentation and address crossfire issues.
• Summary Speeches: Summarize key arguments and impacts. Extend your strongest points and highlight the most critical issues in the debate.
• Grand Crossfire: Engage in open questioning and answer to address any remaining issues. Clarify positions and challenge opponents' claims.
• Final Focus Speeches: Re-emphasize your most powerful arguments. Explain why the judge should prioritize certain issues and impacts. Provide a clear conclusion and solidify your stance.

Judging Criteria: Judges will evaluate the debate based on effective communication, argumentation, evidence quality, and strategic thinking. Debaters should demonstrate a deep understanding of the resolution, present logical and well-supported arguments, and effectively engage with opponents' positions.

Etiquette:

• Be respectful and professional.
• Avoid personal attacks.
• Stay within allotted time limits.
• Use evidence ethically and cite sources.

I was involved in speech during high school and have been observing Lincoln-Douglas, Congressional, and Public Forum for the past 3 years. I have judged most divisions of speech and Congress

While I love competitiveness, I also look for respect of your fellow debater. You can win without being rude or arrogant.

You have worked hard and have a lot to say, but if you speak fast or unclearly and I can't understand you, what you say will not matter. Pace yourself, put the most important things in first.

Present a clear speech or case, try not to repeat the same point multiple times, move forward with your topic or point, and like a good attorney would do; close the deal with a solid finishing line.

You will learn that you perform your best when you are enjoying what you are doing and having a little fun!

As a brand-new judge, I have only taken the certification courses and have no real experience with the National Speech & Debate forum. (I was drafted as a volunteer). I have a lifetime of exposure in the real world of effective public speaking and robust debate experience in both the governmental and business sectors.

My paradigm is straight forward:

1. Know your topic - Research both sides of your debate or points. I will not grade you on what my personal feelings or knowledge of the subject concludes. Rather, I will judge you on the fact that you recognized both sides of the argument, and that you earnestly tried to demonstrate your passion for your side of the debate.

2. Communicate - I do not appreciate demeaning or mean-spirited argument. It does not progress your stance or appeal to those you wish to persuade. Remember that the main objective of this program is grading your performance based on your ability to communicate effectively.

3. I do not like theatrics in debate. Emotion is perfectly acceptable, but theatrics does not have a place in a congressional debate forum. Follow the Parliamentary Procedure and respect the process.

4. Finish it – What is your conclusion based on what was presented? It is very possible that the team that loses the fact-based argument, wins the competition, solely on how they prepared and presented their positions and responded to the cross examination.

My sole aim is to help you along your journey in influential public speaking, and cognitive active debate.