2021 — Online, NY/US
Varsity PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Went to TOC '21.
Defense is not sticky - if you want defense to flow through, you need to extend it in every speech. That said, if first summary extends defense that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal, second summary is too late to bring up a new frontline.
Screaming "Smith 16" is not an extension. If you want me to vote on something, you need to extend the warranting as well as the evidence.
Talk as fast as you want as long as you're clear (but I find that when people talk fast, their warranting suffers; I will not vote off blippy warranting).
No theory unless you actually, genuinely care about the issue (see TOC finals 2021 for a good example).
Bonus points for any jokes made during speeches :)
I'm a lay judge.
I prefer you to make your speeches slow and to the point
I look for these things;
1) Logical Argumentation
2) Strong Presentation
3) Ethical Debaters
Make sure you have fun and let me know if you need anything in the round.
Don't ask questions for people on your side that are just meant to boost you guys (etc: 'do u agree that humans rights are good????). If you're asking questions on your own side they need to have purpose or you are wasting everyone's time and taking away a question from someone who could write a good one. Congress is a debate event, treat it like it is. If you are not bringing up ANY new contentions or refuting points in a meaningful way; I will not look kindly on your performance.
I will always look at debate over speech, I will be willing to look past a little bit of a speech slip up if you are the strongest debater in the room. However, please try your best to speak in an interesting way in order to keep me and the other judges engaged.
Debate: Feel free to run Ks/Tricks/Shells as long as you can dumb them down enough for someone who never really ventured out out of Congress. While I do believe that debate is a game to a certain extent, if you are running something that is very morally questionable, you need to back it up with why I should vote for it.
For CX/PF: If you can avoid spreading I would appreciate it. I try my best to avoid judging policy but due to a disability it is very hard for me to keep up with the flow sometimes. PF is a mostly lay event and if you cannot avoid spreading for whatever reason, you need to make sure that you are easy to understand and you should strongly consider adding me to an email chain if possible.
For LD/BQ/W: While I don't know a whole lot about these events, feel free to run philosophy even if you need to simplify it a little bit. I had a lot of friends in CX who like to talk about and run philosophy so I am open to it.
Speech Events: For extemp/impromtu, please do not be afraid to be controversial in your speeches. Unless you are being racist/sexist/etc I won't vote you down for having politics or ideas I disagree with.
This is my first time judging so please keep debate jargon to a minimum.
Matthew Cupich. firstname.lastname@example.org
* 3 years: Public Forum debate competitor for William P. Clements High School. (Texas & National Circuits)
* 2 years: Foreign Extemporaneous competitor for '' '' '' '' (Texas Circuit)
* 1 year: coaching middle school Public Forum debaters at Fort Settlement Middle School.
- Be respectful and kind.
- Don't add me to the email chain until it is necessary.
- Speak at a slow to moderate pace (6/10 speed). I don't like fast mumbling because I can't understand what you are saying (Especially on zoom, this is difficult).
- Evidence ethics are important: Extend cards clearly through summary and final focus (Public Forum). I don't like to see misconstrued or unclear evidence. Now your sources.
- Crossfires are important: ask meaningful questions that have strategic value (Public Forum)
- Speak clearly and confidently. (Slow & clear > Fast & messy)
- Signpost: explain where you are debating on the flow (Public Forum).
- Debate is like chess: arguments are like chess pieces and strategy is important.
- Theory is good. However, I do not have any in-round experience with theory debate.
If you would like know more, feel free to ask me questions before the round starts. Thank you.
Experience: I am a senior at the University of Iowa where I study political science, international affairs, and philosophy. I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I have experience and working knowledge with all speech and debate events. I have previously coached in Des Moines, Iowa, and for NSDA China. I am currently unaffiliated with any team, school, or individual competitors.
PF: I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after the warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.
- If at all possible, I would like to start rounds early. I understand that's not always possible or teams need to prep, so I'm just appreciative if we do start early. No problem if you need to take your time though.
- While in evidence exchange, I expect all students to have their hands on screen and mics unmuted to ensure that time is not used for prep.
- Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.
- FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing. Impact calc within every speech is most persuasive.
- Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.
TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.
LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. On the rare occasion, I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I'm almost always good with speed. I prefer competitors disclose to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points.
Hello, Greetings !!!
I am a parent judge and have some experience judging public forum debate format. I am aware of incredible time & effort debaters put in for preparation and how much they value and look for judge's feedback. I would like to be fair in judging and would suggest following,
1. Speak Clear,loud, confident and concise.
2. Speed - Like medium so that i can flow. No spreading.
3. Please do not bring up new arguments in Summary and Final Focus. Extend your arguments and collapse in Summary and FF.
4. Do not personally attack or use offensive language towards your opponent. I expect this to be a sportive and enjoyable experience.
5. Stick to the time limits.
6. I expect clear evidence and warranting when supporting arguments.
7. Voters - If you want me to vote for you, please make it clear what arguments you are winning on.
Good Luck debating !!!
2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League
2018- present CSU Fullerton
email chain- email@example.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.
techy truth: 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. 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.
-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink
-know where u are losing but make it fashion
-dont be a jerk
Background: 3x nats senate 1x toc congress, 1x toc info 2x nietoc various events, decent amount of experience in PF, I understand LD and progressive debate but I've never done it done it and so better to err on the side of caution if you are going to get funky, if I'm judging policy then we all better put our big brain hats and cross our fingers
add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Some things to consider if I'm judging you no matter event + a note on online judging:
1. Signpost. You could have the best refutation ever but if you don't signpost I might miss it.
2. don't be rude, debate is supposed to be accessible and fun for everyone, so respect your opponents! Debaters who look like they're having a good time are way more fun to judge.
3. If for some personal or act of god reason you need to step away from the computer please just say something. I will do my absolute best to accommodate you within timely reason.
4. Speed isn't an issue for me but online there might be some lag problems so just know your wifi.
5. I enjoy niche arguments in every event as long as they aren't unfairly specific
Some things to consider if I'm judging you in Congressional Debate:
1. Key word up there is debate. I highly value refutation in congress speeches. No worries if you give an authorship, but try to show me different facets of your argumentation skills and speaking styles. I'm judging on a holistic model of who is the best legislator in the round- not necessarily who has the best argument or speech.
2. I'm not a fan of when no one is prepared to give speeches. If you get up to give a speech because there is a lull, even if you are not perfectly prepared, I will mentally award you brownie points and it will contribute to the "best legislator" notion.
3. I do pay more attention to CX in congress than other debates because of how few times you get to speak. But it won't make or break you. That being said, if you ask the same question again and again to different speakers I will probably find you annoying and not contributing to the debate.
4. I love crystallizations and later round speeches in congress. If you are giving the last speech do not give a constructive. Congress is about engagement and adaption. If you give a constructive 13 speeches in the debate I am going to wonder what you have been doing. The later the cycle goes the more weighing should be done.
5. I value argument>speaking 99% of the time. But, congress does have speaking elements to it. As long as you are loud and clear we should not have a problem. It is nice if you don't look at your flow pad too much.
Some things to Consider I'm judging you in PF/LD:
1. Voters. I will vote off of what you tell me to. If a team doesn't give me voters I default to the other teams. Be clear and do the work for me and I won't care
3. I'm tech can be over truth but I do like hearing warrants and am responsive to teams calling out logical gaps/ inconsistencies in link chains
4. If you want me to read a card than tell me to call for the card otherwise sry bud
5. Don't flow cross so if something happens than you better bring it up in a speech
A note on Theory and K's:
1. Theory is necc. to keep debaters in check but I'm not a fan of tricks, time wasters or other trivial nonsense. Please explain it clearly like you are talking to your well educated but slightly demented grandma
2. running theory just to be strategic kinda makes me queasy and I will have more leniency for your opponent if it's silly
3. Running theory against clearly inexperienced debaters is a form of abuse in itself
I have never judged high school before, so I would prefer that you do not use complicated jargon.
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.
- 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.
I debate for the University of Pittsburgh; third year of college debate.
Please add me to the email chain, before the round would be nice. Email me if you have questions before or after the debate.
If you have a technical issue, just pause your timer and let everyone know.
Mics will cut out sometimes, if this becomes a problem, I will let you know and pause the speech.
Clarity over speed, but you can go fast, and I’ll keep up on the flow
I’m not incredibly familiar with this years topic so explain your acronyms and make your tags clear, also differentiate them from the cards because online debate can be hard to hear. I will read your cards and figure it out from there as long as you’re making honest arguments you can defend and explain.
I judge primarily by listening to what you say, which means cx matters, judge instruction tells me how to evaluating my decision and I’m not going to just look at your cards while you read them instead I will pay attention to what you’re telling me. Impact comparison makes it much easier to evaluate the debate but don’t sacrifice a good framework debate.
I am not tech over truth. While you can win on technical aspects of the flow that doesn't mean I default to tech when you can make simple arguments with good evidence.
I am partial to the affirmative in framework debates, however, I will vote on the most persuasive team which means you have to answer questions for me which include what your model of debate looks like or your critique of the resolution/debate etc.
Fairness is an IL to Education, not an Impact in itself. If your impact is fairness, you need to explain what debate is and not rely on a premeditated idea of debate. I like when teams write my ballot in the 2nr and 2ar.
The best way to win a round is to narrate what happened in the debate and sit on a couple of arguments rather than try and go for too much without a clear line of thinking.
I tend to protect the 2nr, so try not to lie too aggressively in the 2ar and sit on your biggest pieces of offense that were won.
Dropped arguments should be extended but will not get you an auto win by any means unless you use them for a different part of the debate. I would much rather vote on a team that made the best arguments and consistently kept it clean on the flow then a team that relies on debate tech to get out of tough spots on the flow. Make it make sense.
Finally, debate rounds are fun and can be very educational. Try and keep the debate interesting because it really does take 2 hours.
Do not harm others with your language because debate is a real activity.
I debated for Western Highschool for 4 years, all of which in Public Forum (2013-2017).
I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida.
Currently, working on my Master's degree at Georgetown University.
a couple of things:
- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow
- First summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.
- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically. I'll probably be on Facebook.
- summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.
-any other questions ask me before the round
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.***
This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.
I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.
Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.
OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague
Tech or Truth?
I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.
I am a new judge, but have some understanding of Public Forum.
Please speak at a conversational pace, so that I can understand you.
Please be respectful and polite amongst each other and your opponents.
* Keep track of your own prep time.
4th year at University of Pittsburgh
Be persuasive, do what you do well, but remember you're more than a debate round.
Defend what you're doing in a debate if it's questioned. If you diverge from normative debate practices then be ready to defend why that divergence is good. Always keep in mind that just because you're right doesn't change that you're still a debater doing debate. Explain what parts of the cards you think justify your argument and which cards to look at if needed. I don't really care about arguments people make at this point, as long as you're making an honest argument and not just saying things to waste time, be inflammatory, or you just don't have any argument (at that point just make smart uncarded arguments instead of weird backfile checking please). I prefer debates with fewer sheets. I don't like to have to keep up with super fast debates.
Just make it make sense.
A dropped argument is not a true argument, though it may be persuasive.
Micro-aggressions are a thing. Please avoid. If you come through with the sass though, you're good.
Hello! I competed in PF at Kennedy HS in Cedar Rapids for 4 years and am currently a student at the University of Iowa studying Public Health and Spanish. A few quick things about me as a judge :
Things I like seeing in round :
- clear arguments with relevant and credible evidence. no sketchy or uncited quotes.
- extremely organized rebuttals!
- weighing!!!! i will default towards teams that weigh their arguments
- keeping track of your own time
Things I don't like seeing in round:
- card dumping with no explanation
- holding up the round by pre flowing: do this before getting there.
- policy/LD type arguments like Ks - those do not belong in PF
- people who are very mean and condescending
- extremely fast speaking (fast is okay just not on the extreme side)
- new responses in FF
I am a lay parent judge. This is my first time judging.
Speak slowly and clearly or else I won't understand you; I will vote for the team I understand more. The faster you speak, the less likely I will be able to understand you.
That means I like you prioritizing responses rather than speeding through ten really fast. Also, I don't know much about this topic, so please explain your arguments and responses in a way that makes sense throughout the round.
Please be polite, not overly aggressive, and have fun!
Last updated 9/25/21 for Valley
Note for Valley: PLEASE GIVE ME MORE SUBSTANCE ROUNDS AND POLICY ROUNDS I BEG OF YOU
Lindale '21 U of Houston '25
Conflicts: Roberto Sosa, Leah Yeshitila, Anastasia Keeler, Ben Freda-Eskanazi, Adeeb Khan, Armaan Christ and Andrew Tsang
I coach Armaan Christ privately and coach Andrew Tsang through DebateUS!
Somewhere in the middle of Megan Wu and Patrick Fox or The Walmart brand of Andrew Overing
Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible
Phil - 1
Theory (Friv and Not-Friv) - 1
Policy - 1
Tricks - 3
K - 2
Quick Pref Guide: My judging philosophy is that the debaters control the debate so I will intervene the least. All preferences are preferences and not hard boundaries. Stolen from Patrick Fox who stole it from YaoYao - "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that."
History: I debated at Lindale for 4 years doing LD the entire time. I did traditional debate for a year and a half my freshmen year and the first semester of sophomore year. I was introduced to circuit debate my junior year and read some anti-cap lit all junior year. Senior year though I read mostly phil and theory with the occasional DA 2NR or policy aff.
Senior year aff wiki - https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lindale/Pittman%20Aff
Senior year neg wiki - https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lindale/Pittman%20Neg
- Tied with policy as my favorite
- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read
- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer
- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews
- General Principle means nothing - just answer the counterplans lol
- default epistemic confidence
- Moderately comfortable with
- Taught with enough K coaches and helped enough K debaters to feel comfortable with K debate even though I didn't personally do it (I teach with Holden Bukowsky a lot and I was coached by Patrick Fox for 2 years)
- Not susceptible to K tricks (PREFIAT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING STOP SAYING IT PLEASE)
- Love K affs since clash debates are fun and nice to judge
- Just don't be cringe (no edgy for the sake of being edgy)
- Alternatives should probably do something (eMbRaCe tHe DeAtH dRiVe means nothing) do material actions like joining the Communist Party or burning down the state
- Tied with phil as my favorite type of debate
- Please read this in front of me - not because I think it's the easiest to evaluate or anything but because I like seeing complex policy strategies be fleshed out and some in-depth debates specifically about Heg I think are super interesting.
- Weighing is how you get my ballot (sometimes my ballot is literally x weighed, y didn't so x wins).
- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns
- Please do more case debate (I love case debate)
- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies
- Uncondo means, unless going for theory or a higher layer, the advocacy must be in the 2NR
- I will judge kick if instructed but I really don't want too since I think that forces the aff to debate both the world of the CP and the squo
- pretty comfortable with
- Basically Hacks for Disclosure
- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)
- I think RVIs are great, underutilized and important for debate.
- Will vote on friv theory but it should be related to the round i.e I like AFC but I don't like "must wear x clothing"
- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis
- Love Nebel but probably not a true argument
T-Framework v K Affs
- Not Dan Ban also don't think framework is genocide
- Err neg unless the aff is black, if the aff is black I probably err aff because of Debate's history with Blackness
- Not at all susceptible to debate bad affs as I think it's intuitive that debate is good
- 1AR probably needs a counter interp
- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense
- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"
- I read tricks every once in a while and understand the strategic value in them but if your opponent missed something I probably did too.
- I'll evaluate it.
- If you don't have too, please don't.
Default is 28.5
If you are obviously better than your opponent (I.e natcir debater vs trad debater) I will give you a 30 if you make the round as inclusive as possible for your opponent
Being annoying with the word 'oopsie' -.1 speak per time you said oopsie
Showing me your wiki with good disclosure will award +.1 speaks
Sending a cute pet pic in doc +.1 speaks
Just have a good time - at the end of the day, you are all high schoolers yelling at each other about random topics whether it be Kantianism or International Relations in random classrooms or zoom calls this isn't as serious as you think it is, just have a good debate and everything will be fine :) Also non-CX clarifications are fine - I'm not someone who will yell at you and say "grr questions only cx!!!1111!!" I do not care. Also, don't be rude to your opponent for no reason, no need to be hyper aggressive or anything it's just a debate round.
Background: I am a parent judge. I have judged two debate tournaments for JVPF and NPF in the last year.
Speaking: Please prioritize clarity over speed. I will let the debaters know to slow down, if I am unable to follow.
I expect all debaters to conduct themselves in a polite and respectful manner. Please do not interrupt when anyone else is speaking.
Arguments: Please weigh your impacts and provide sufficient evidences. Ensure you cover all the opposing teams arguments during your responses. Do not bring any new facts or arguments during the final speech because it does not give the opponent team a chance to respond. Please provide clear analysis for why you should win in the final focus.
As Aristotle mentioned, use all three modes of persuasion - "Ethos, Pathos and Logos" to score a Win!
All the best and have fun at the tournament!
I have judged high school debate before, but only once, so I would prefer that you do not use complicated jargon.
PF Paradigm 2021-22 Season:
eDebate - Year of the Delta Variant
I consider myself tech>truth but I have been approaching a closer equilibrium between the two lately due to the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more.
2021 Fall Stats Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 495 rounds since 2014 with a 55% Pro and 45% Con balance. Not bad. Slight Aff bias it seems.
If it's a Russian conflict link debate you need to do comparative analysis using some of these possible distinguishing factors.
1. Why are you precedents or empirics more illustrative of a trend? Is one empiric more important than another? Are the number of empirics important? Why?
2. Why is your Kremlinology (game theory study of Kremlin actions) more correct? One side says Russia is reactive. Another says proactive. That's not a debate. Do you have simulations or war games that use these same predictions? Are they your logical predictions and why are they sound?
3. Why is your evidence better? What was the methodology? What did it look at it? Who is the author? Are they more authoritative? Does it postdate? If it does what changed in the proceeding months or years that matter?
I've seen dozens of these link debates by now and they become virtually all muddy and mucky. Please help me.
PS I really love teams that have evidence cut from this month because it shows me they kept with the topic and aren't using camp or team files that are static and stale ;)
- 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 more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
- 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 but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
- 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.
- I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory and/or pre-fiat debates in PF. I will be especially incredulous of your theory argument if I discover your application of theory is principally inconsistent. For example, you are running disclosure or paraphrasing theory against one team for violating but not another team who violated (assuming both judges would have equally been receptive.) There may be other extenuating circumstances that explain the discrepancy in application but they need to be addressed. Lastly, if you look back at the last 22 rounds or so I've judged with theory or a pre-fiat argument as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced said argument in the round 6 of 22 rounds. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic specific rounds but in principle remain tabula rasa.
- 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.
- DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
- 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. Smh y'all.
- If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear.
- My favorite question in cx is: Why?
- My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or evidence" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
- Don't read "framework" at the top of case unless it's carded. Rarely is it warranted or carded. It's almost always asserted. If you have a card and have an independent warrant go for it. Otherwise don't waste our time in the speech when we know the debate will end with CBA. You can run overviews and weighing but that's different than framework as some approach it. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.
- I understand the desire to ask for quantifications or quantitative bright-lines. It can be helpful in some debates. However, if you ask for a specific quantification then the burden on you in turn is to provide quantifications for your argument as well. I can't tell you how many times I see teams ask others to quantify their impacts and little if none of their own meet that same standard.
- If you run a percentage increase in an impact or effect you better have the original baseline or original percent if asked. Saying something increases by 845% is misleading without context. If my tea drinking increased by 200% per day and the original amount was 2 oz that isn't significant in context.
- Offtime road maps fine
- Pre-flowing in general should be done before the round. Especially if it's second flight. Like what are y'all doing outside the room lmao. Print out copies or something. Easy.
- Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic]
- To see my discussions and extended preferences please check out r/debate on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/GabeRusk/submitted/
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
Coaching Experience: 11 years of coaching, instructor at 14 debate camps, debate camp director, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, Director of Debate at Fairmont 2018-Current, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, Capitol 2016-2018, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.
Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Law & Religion - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment - Majored in Religion and Philosophy at DU '14. Other research areas of familiarity include Buddhism, comparative religion, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & SCOTUS history.
Ahhhhh! You made it this far. Plus .1 speaker points if your pet Zoom bombs.
#1 thing I want to see is clash. You can be creative with the way you do this, but I want to see strong refutations, especially against your opponent's strongest point.
Always have evidence for any claim that requires it. I also like to see evidence from recent years.
Please limit spreading!
I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is email@example.com.
I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.
How To Win My Ballot
Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.
Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.
Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.
Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.
Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.
All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.
Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !
I am a lay judge
What that specifically entails:
1. No spreading, no blippy arguments, no theory/K's, etc. Moreover, I put a huge emphasis on presentation skills and the ability to speak well/slow/confidently.
2. I need very very very clear warranting, clear link chains, and clear impact analysis. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything.
3. Absolutely no technical terms as there is a high chance I do not know what they mean. This, once again, emphasizes the need to explain everything.
This is my first time judging so do not talk too fast and please do not use complicated jargon.
Important non-debate stuff
Conflicts are John F Kennedy High School
Please put pronouns in chat or in your name on zoom if in person just say it before your speech. I will drop speaks with continued misgendering of opponent.
Here is my email for the link chain firstname.lastname@example.org please use this if debating on zoom I would prefer not to have to guess what you're saying when your internet craps out. Remember to use your non-school email when using my email because many school emails will not allow you to contact a non-school email. If your school email will let you great but in my experience in online debate that's not the case.
Secondary History major
Going to college to teach history to high schoolers. Currently doing a gap year to tutor students for a non profit in Cedar Rapids.
I did one year PF and three years in LD with some speech events thrown in. Went to nationals three times, won some local tournaments doing both circuit and traditional styles. Did meh on the circuit overall but competent in most aspects of it. Basically I'll generally know what you're talking about even if I'm not the best at personally debating it.
So I have alot of emphasis on manners in round. I think the way foresnics compeition is built lends itself to cliques and ego. There is a difference between being good and being rude. I think debate should grow you as a person to become more educated and more humble. As many theory debaters like to tout the point of debate is to be educational otherwise schools won't fund it (which is why sports are given so much money is because they are very educational) so I think when you debate you should build the space to be educational and safe. So what do I like to see in round?
1. Understanding and patience. Don't act arrogant if your opponent doesn't understand your arguments or what you are running. No one can know everything and you should help them understand so everyone can learn more. This means don't be rude in cross ex/crossfire. I don't mind confidence I love it actually it makes me not want to look at Reddit for cute cat photos. Use common sense. Sure it's a competition but good competitors have respect for one another whether they're a novice or the champion of the TOC.
2. Do AA. Advocate and ask. Debate should be a safe space for people and we should all work to make it that way. For example, ask debaters before round pronouns. If your opponent accidentally misgenders you in a speech feel free to speak up and make corrections. This is an ok thing to do before prep or the next speech. If your opponent continues to do it speaks will be dropped. If you have some sort of disability that hurts your ability to compete (for example if you are hard of hearing or physically have something to keep you from spreading) let the people in the room know. The debate space needs to be accessible to all and by advocating for your needs helps to do that!
3. Please have your cases and evidence ready to share and generally try to keep it in the same place. These should be ready by the time you are done with your prep. At a certian point I'll drop speaks the longer you take.
4. Have fun! Make sure to congratulate your oppenent and be a positive influence! Debate is better with kindness not arrgoance.
Prefs Cheat Sheet:
K - 1
Phil/Framework - 1
Trad - 2*
Policy/LARP - 3
Theory/T - 4
Tricks - 4
I was a K debater I love Ks. You run a Cap K and cite the OGs Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, I'll have no problem. I also love hearing Fanon, Haywood, Newton, Hampton, and others. I'm pretty down with most decolonial theory too (Fanon and others mentioned) however I'm personally not a fan of Sakai. Basically, I'm good with most radical Ks you want to run and those authors or authors in the same vein I'll understand and will light up like a bulb if you run them. Theory I'm not familiar with are Feminism Ks and Abelism Ks. I do not know the authors that well but I'm happy to learn and don't be afraid to read them!
I love dense phil and framework debate. Framework debate can honestly be some of the most interesting LD debates and I love it. Just make sure to not throw out dense jargon and do some work to explain what the cards are saying. You're throwing a lot of info at your opponent and I very quickly if I don't understand something I'm going to feel like a very bad judge. So do me a favor and do some work to explain it like you would to a child.
Not really a fan of policy style in LD debate personally but I don't usually have a problem understanding. If it's not topical or is barely meeting the threshold I won't be a happy camper but I'll still judge it. I mean what can I do make you read something else?
Traditional is up so high because I coach middle schoolers and others so traditional is fresh in my mind all the time.
If you run theory you need to ask yourself "Is there an actual violation" as in is this something I actually truly believe is so horrendous for debate that I truly believe it justifies the time sink. There are kids whose parents work overtime, hell they probably work overtime themselves to afford tournaments and travel and imagine losing on "you didn't give your case to me before round" or some nonsense like "skep permissibility theory" then your opponent has the audacity to say RVIs are bad which are the counter to friv theory but say this time sink is actually good for debate and very educational. Or worse reads a pre-prepared shell off the bat cause they can. I don't like theory and you really have to convince me that it's needed.
It's not Halloween (yet). I don't really understand tricks I don't have a lot of experience with them I think they're funny but that's about it. Not a great judge for them.
Other Preferences stuff
Spreading: I'm fine with it but slow down a tiny bit I don't have the best hearing in the world.
Tabula Rasa: On face yes however you have to do some work on why something is untrue or I'm not going to flow your way. I'm not going to vote for racist, sexist, etc arguments but you have to do some work to explain why something is absurd and should be dropped. Don't make debate worse.
Signposting: Do it. I wish I was the best judge in the world and didn't need it but I'm not so please, please, please, do it.
Jargon: I can't remember jargon for the life of me I know, I know, I'm the worst so keep it light.
Flow: I love a good narrative but I think I default to flow-based.
Other than all that I hope you're having a good day and good luck out there!
I am a parent judge. While I have only had limited experience judging tournaments, I do have a bit of a paradigm
1. I prefer clarity over speed. Better to have a few well reasoned arguments than a series of half baked ones.
2. Be cognizant of the time
3. No ad hominem attacks. Be respectful.
I'm a lay judge. Please be kind to each other , speak clearly and slowly, and no yelling. Read good quality evidence from credible sources.
+1 speaker points if you send your cases with the evidence cards
add me to the email chain- email@example.com
I was a public forum second speaker for three years at Randolph High School.
I flow the round but am overall pretty relaxed on technicalities. Make sure the things you want me to vote on are in summary and final focus.
No spreading please.
I am not very familiar with LD and have never competed it. Regardless, I will flow everything you say and do my best to make a fair decision. Don't get too fancy if possible. Thanks!
My name is Marcus Williams and i'm a senior at the University of Kentucky.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org . You can email me with any questions you have. If you do email chains you can also add me to it before the round.
I really enjoy debate and I think it should be a fun activity that everyone should be comfortable doing. With that being said, I am open to all arguments that teams make. I have NOT done any debating or research on this years high school/middle school topic, but that doesn't mean I am clueless to how things work. It just means you need more explanation.
Do impact and framing work. I prefer specificity when it comes to link arguments. Generic link arguments can get it done with nuance, but I am lenient to aff no link arguments if they press your very general evidence.
Topicality should be treated as a disad, meaning that you should do similar impact calc. Violations should be aff specific. T debates can be kinda confusing if you are just repeating your arguments without answering the other teams, so make sure to do comparative work.
Generic counterplans are fine. Ensure you isolate all 1AC internal links early on and how you resolve them in advance.
I am persuaded by a lot of aff theory arguments however, I find I vote neg a lot more in theory debates because of a lack of impact comparison and technical drops. going for one liner theory arguments are fine if their dropped, but they have to be clearly communicated and substantiated with an impact.
let em rip
I am a first-time parent judge.
Do not speak too fast. I have basic knowledge on the topic but do not assume I will understand your argument without explanations. I will look at the big picture of the round to evaluate it.
I am a college student. This is my first time judging. Be slow.