2021 — Online, NY/US
Novice/JV PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
For me, the best PF debates are ones in which debaters take the idea of a public forum seriously, presenting their arguments with such clarity that anyone would be able to follow them, even with no prior knowledge of the subject. This means not only having a coherent argument, but also making sure to define any topic-specific jargon from the very beginning, reading with expression, and enunciating words. Finally, I value debates in which all debaters display the utmost respect for one another, relying on the strength of their ideas rather than an intimidating or contemptuous attitude.
Head PF Coach @ The Potomac School
Debated four years in policy at Roosevelt High School in Des Moines
Now debating for George Mason University
Put me on your email chain email@example.com
You can also email me with any specific questions or just ask me before round
I am very flow centric & receptive to all kinda of arguments. Just ask any questions you have of me beforehand. The rest of this paradigm won't apply much to y'all :)
I’m receptive to all kinds of arguments. Read what you are good at.
Tech over truth, most of the time
I vote off the flow – I also always flow on paper, so you should probably give me a second to flow your analytics if you want me to weigh them later in the debate.
Here’s my opinions on things ya’ll probably actually want to know about:
Ks: In high school I did little K debate. I understand the lit base for many general K arguments. High theory K arguments I understand less of, but I will still vote on them. With that said, I do probably hold K arguments to a higher threshold. I need a clear conceptualization of the alternative (or method if you’re AFF). I won’t vote on something I don’t understand. Frame the debate for me at the end of the round, I won’t do it for you. The more explanation you can give to me for why you win, the more persuasive you’ll be.
FW: I think framework debates usually end up becoming very messy and complicated, if you can avoid this you’re in a good spot. To do this, make sure that you have an impact in the 2NR. Just saying fairness or education is an impact is not enough. I tend to be more persuaded by education impacts especially if you can contextualize them to the AFF. Fairness is also a fine impact to go for, if you specifically justify why the AFF precludes fairness and can produce examples of topical affirmatives. I think that fairness is an integral part of debate so if the impact comparison is there, you’re in a good place.
T: Impact comparison is ultimately what wins you this debate. Refer to the framework section. Discussions of reasonability do not replace impact comparison. If you want to win this argument, you must give me a clear explanation for why you are reasonably topical and why that is a good lens in which to view the debate. You should also probably have a clear conceptualization of the topic and why it precludes whatever aff. Absent this framing, it’s hard to win T.
Theory: I am generally open to anything, but probably won’t view things such as perm theory as a reason to reject the team rather just a reason to reject the perm. One conditional advocacy is fine. Two is up for debate. More than three is pushing it, but you still need to win the condo debate for me to vote on it. The more conditional advocacies, the lower my threshold is for winning condo.
DAs: I think that link/internal link chains are obviously the weakest parts of these debates. If you win those, you win the disad. Having a diversity of arguments is probably good. Tell me how to frame the disad at the end of the debate and you will probably be ahead.
CPs: Solvency deficits are good and can probably win you the debate. I feel like a lot of teams lean towards always going for the perm, which may not always be the best option. Even if you don’t have cards, smart analytical solvency args can definitely win you debates if you do enough work in the final speeches.
Hello! I'll start by giving a little bit of background about myself. I am a fourth year student at Simon Fraser University currently majoring in Health Science. University deepened my interest in debate and thoughtful discussion through my time in philosophy clubs and courses, and I have been looking to expand my judging experience ever since. I have volunteered as a judge both at local high school tournaments across West Vancouver, and I have had the pleasure of judging at the University of British Columbia's Spring Debate Tournament.
As a judge, I appreciate speakers that take their time with their points, and speak in a respectful, concise manner. I believe it's important to explore the points carefully, breaking them down in a way that shows their strength from their foundation. Speak to those around you as people, and take the time to explain the truth of your side. The saying, albeit overused, remains exceptionally true: quality over quantity. There is no need to flood the room with sound.
TL;DR: Work as a team, speak with purpose, be respectful. You'll do great if you remember this.
Please remain respectful towards your opponents and your partner, and have fun while debating. It will be my privilege to see you debate. Best of luck!
Debate is foremost education in speaking well, an exercise in communication. I despise spreading. If you spread, I will not flow. Slight speed is only justified in the 1AR.
In PF, I do not like blippies (although he's wonderful with children). I want arguments responded to in full. Summary and FF are there to pick and choose which arguments you will focus on- make the case for why the arguments you chose are more important with Voters, and ignore the rest. A dropped argument is only important if the other side made a convincing case that this was a key argument. I am unfamiliar with the current resolution.
In Policy, SHIST Stock Issues, weigh Advantage/DAs after that. But of course if another paradigm is raised and not responded to then I will vote on that. Prefer closed Cross-X and DAs in the 2N- old school. Will accept Kritiks and CPs, but not preferred. Will vote on T. Want ev-> fully sourced, good clash, signposting, road maps, and Voters.
As a student participated in every IE and Debate form at AHS (save LD). My favourite events are IX, POI, INF, and PD. Created the Moroccan debate league and trained the coaches and judges from multiple schools there, beginning in '12; took teams to Nats multiple times and coached for four schools in Morocco and China.
Paradigm: I am as hands off as possible. I want you to talk about whatever you want to talk about, and I will flow it.
Most people can stop reading here. For those of you who like to push the limits of judges, keep reading:
- I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.
- Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)
- Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is NOT fine.
- Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution
- The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive (super unfair to the 1st speaking team)
- I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory in PF. Miss me with the "YoU jUsT dOn'T uNdeRsTaNd PrOgReSsIvE aRgUmEnTs." I understand them, and I read them in college. Here's a thought: there are already 2 other categories where you can do these. Here's another thought: there are still ways to (A) be progressive or (B) read theory in a PF style. Example A: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example B: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.
- Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.
- I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines (quite the word soup, I know, sorry). All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.
- I will vote down teams for especially egregious evidence violations. Feel free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute.
Experience: 2 years debating PF in HS, 4 years assistant PF coach, 2 years head PF coach
Pro tips: Weigh as much and as soon as possible. Tell me explicitly and clearly what (not who) to vote on in the Final Focus.
Paradigm: Tabs. I will flow and listen to everything, but I'm pretty out of the game at the moment and was never neck-deep in the circuit/k-sphere. Meaning, you can read technical stuff, Ks, etc.; but if you expect to win you're going to want to speak at around 70% of the speed of spreading and including some helpful underviews after a lot of the big parts of your arguments/evidence. In other words, analysis of your own arguments will be critical to winning.
Experience: 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD.
Pro tips: Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other, so be careful. I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy--although I can't offer any free speaker points, sorry :(
I am a flow judge. If I don't understand you, I won't put it into my flow. That said, there is a difference between speaking fast and spreading. You can speak fast but if it is incomprehensible (spreading), I will miss the argument and it didn't make it onto my flow. Also, do not expect me to understand the topic; it is up to the debaters to allow me to understand the round. Please clearly state your impacts in your final speeches.
In LD, there are 5 minutes of prep and I generally don't allow for flex prep. There's cross-x time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep but not clarification (again, that's what cross x is for).
I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I look for arguments that are both logically sound and that have proper evidence to support it. I would probably describe myself as leaning traditional but I am comfortable with progressive arguments.
I have judged Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Parli, but I am most familiar with LD.
I would also request that there should be a non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's.
- Debated four years at Liberty University (Policy debate for about a year and a half and more kritical/performative arguments for the last two and half years with the majority of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as cap, ab set col and soo on)
- I was an NDT and CEDA Octofinalist and won first speaker at CEDA
- Currently a GSA at Liberty University
- Yes, put me on the email chain —— firstname.lastname@example.org
Disclaimer ---- It’s my first year out from debating so tbh I am still learning so do with that what you will
- If your gonna try and full-on spread in online debate I hope your mic and connection is good if not I probably won’t catch anything you say --- don’t sacrifice speed for clarity especially online
- Try and organize your docs I can’t stand unorganized docs
- A policy is round is almost two hours These debates are too long for yall to be yelling back and forth and being mean to one another for a ballot. There’s a line between being mean and petty I enjoy petty I don’t enjoy mean people. Be nice and Have fun
- Speaker Points --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate but if you mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .2
How I view debate ---- Overall, I think the debate is a game first and foremost BUT I think the debate has the potential to be more than a game I think that there are conversations that we should and can have in the debate space. BUT I also think competition structures many of the decisions we make in debate. So I guess that comes down to whether that’s a good or bad thing?
K aff’s --- Think they are great the more creative the better ---- I prefer that they are in the direction of the resolution. Think they need defense on why they should get the ballot and why you are in the debate space.
K’s ----- I don’t know every K in existence but with thorough explanation and well execution I will probably be fine. I think the links need to be specific to the aff so if you read generic links in the 1NC I need the Block to be pulling lines from the aff to prove the link. Not a fan of reject alt just cuz they don’t do anything but if you’re like reject the aff and then do this instead then yeah that works
FWK ---- Framework makes the game work. Don’t think fairness is an impact but somehow, I feel like I would still vote on it. I think you need a TVA. Also, a reason why your model of debate is good and yes I will vote on it
Policy aff --- ngl if you’re in this boat I am probably not the best for you. If you read a soft-left aff I am probably good for you, but hard-right aff’s I am probably not the best for but I understand them I just would ask that you be very thorough
When it comes to arguments and style, I am pretty much open to anything if it doesn’t fall into any of the ism’s racist, sexist, or ableist (and any other ism I haven’t listed). I am also not down for death good, but anything else I am pretty much down for.
Regardless of what you run at the end of the debate do not leave me with a bunch of information I have to sort through myself because I will do what I want with it and you are just gonna have to deal so tell me what to do with. Meaning I think judge instruction is very important and absent it I don’t think you are allowed to be upset if the decision doesn’t go your way.
For my LD and PF folks:
1. line by line is so important to me specifically in the rebuttal and final focus speech ---- Clash is very important the less clash the lower the speaks the more clash the higher the speaks.
2. impact calc is so important especially when you essentially have the same impact which means that most of the time these debates are gonna come down to who accesses their i/l better (hint hint wink wink this is key)
3. also time yourselves not gonna lie I become super annoyed when I have to time debates
4. and for the Love of God be nice to one another I have watched too many debates where debaters are rude and condescending to one another and as the judge those debates become sooo awkward for me really fast. If you are being rude or do something way out of line your speaks will definitely reflect that and if your rude enough the ballot will also reflect that.
5. I am a speaks fairy which means I usually start somewhere at a 28.7 and then move up based on the debate anything lower than this and you probably messed up somewhere in the debate.
6. I am always open to question after my RFD. As a debater I think it is important that you know why you won or loss a debate in a way that makes sense to you.
7. Also if you are gonna read a framework in your constructive you should probably use it during the rest of the debate also. If you are not gonna use it do not read it, but if you do read one its usually where I start when looking to make a decision in the round, because I believe the framework is supposed to frame the round, which means all of your args should probably be filtered/tied to your framework.
8. Most importantly do you and have fun debate is a game dont make this space unenjoyable for someone else
I competed in CNDF and PF for four years in high school, and I have been coaching and judging debate since then.
- Clear Organization (Signposting is preferred).
- Use evidence and logical analysis to support your arguments.
- Present clear impacts and weigh them.
- Have your evidence ready.
- Speak with clarity.
- Listen and respect your opponents.
As a first time judge, I am engaged by the talent of so many young minds. Being a new judge, I've already determined reducing the speed of your speech (just slightly) will give me a bit more time to grasp everything you are trying to say in such a short amount of time. The more of your points that I hear and absorb allows me to make a decision on your content.
And just remember to have fun!
Tawfique Elahi is a graduating student majoring in Computer Science at NSU. He is currently doing an undergraduate thesis on Human-Computer Interaction for Digital Financial Inclusion.
He is a debate adjudicator having extensive experience for the last three years, especially with the North American circuit. He judged elimination rounds at 55+ competitions based in 5 different continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), been on 14 Chief Adjudication Panel, 3 Equity Panel, 22 Grandfinals, and chaired 12 elimination rounds. He is experienced with formats such as WSDC, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters.
NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse
General Notes for speakers:
- I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
- While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
- Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
- If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
- If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
- Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
- Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
- Roadmaps are appreciated.
- Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
- Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
- I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.
For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance.
In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!
Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.
P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!
I was a pretty good high school debater (Policy). But that was 30+ years ago!
I've gotten back into debate via judging, starting in 2019. Since then I've judged ~ 5 PF tournaments. I'm still a bit rusty with my flowing abilities, but I'm getting there. So, I'm not a citizen lay judge, but I'm also not ready to judge the final round at Nationals.
EDIT: The following is a paradigm for LD only. PF folks, please disregard. I'm fine with anything in PF--just make it very clear in the final focus.
I debated for five years at Valley High School in West Des Moines, IA, graduating in 2017. I qualified to TOC my junior and senior years, accumulating eight career bids and getting to octos my senior year. I currently go to Harvard and study social studies.
INTRODUCING THE 30 SPEAKS CHALLENGE! If you make an argument that I should give you a 30, here is what will happen:
1. Immediately after the round, I'm going to go to a random number generator and select a number 1-7.
2. That number will correlate to a numbered question, taken from UChicago Supplemental Essays among other sources. See the bottom for essay questions.
3. You will close your laptop and immediately respond with an answer. Your answer cannot exceed 30 seconds long.
4. If the answer is creative, humorous, and interesting, I'll give you a 30. If it's not, then I'll give you what you would have gotten anyway and then subtracting 0.3 speaks. High risk, high reward.
5. I'll repeat this process with your opponent if they wish. If both of you succeed, then whoever wins the round will get a 30 and whoever loses will get a 29.9.*
Note: I reserve the right to not follow the terms of this challenge should something egregious or unsafe occur in the round, or if you are just overwhelmingly rude to everyone.
IMPORTANT NOTE ON SPEAKS:
I'll vote on any argument, but if you read/do the following, your speaks will be lowered.
1. Disclosure theory (especially must disclose full text/open source)
3. If you refer to yourself as "we"
4. If you just read for 7 minutes (your speaks are inversely related to the amount of time spent reading)
5. If you spread against a novice/lay debater/someone of an obviously different skill level instead of including them in the round and making it a learning experience.
At its core, debate is your game. I really don't care what you do as long as you aren't offensive. I enjoy good framework debates the most but in the end, do what you want. I'm not great at flowing, so slow down on tags and author names. I'm not a big fan of AFC and really don't like disclosure theory or brackets theory. This means I have a low threshold for responses, but if you win it I'll vote for it begrudgingly. Speaks are based on strategy and usually start at a 28.5 and go up or down from there.
Ks: I don't understand a lot of the lit, but a well executed K is impressive. I think K vs. framework debates are interesting. My advice if you want to run a K is to overexplain the implications of the arguments you're running and don't assume I understand all of it.
Theory: I default to theory is an issue of competing interpretations. RVIs are fine to go for, but please weigh between warrants for an RVI instead of 15 blippy arguments for an RVI and 15 blippy arguments against an RVI. Voters other than fairness and education are neat. Oh, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE SLOW DOWN ON INTERPS AND COUNTERINTERPS.
Util: Weigh everything and it could be interesting. I'm majoring in international relations and did a lot of policy work outside of debate so I'll probably understand what the plan or CP does, but if you're going for something complex/debatey (recontextualizing fiat or something like that) explain what that means.
Framework: Love it. A good framework debate with weighing and preclusion is really fun to watch. However, weigh between preclusion arguments and explain why yours operates on a higher level instead of just going "I preclude." Also, number arguments so they're easier to flow. Framework vs. ROTB debates are cool to watch.
Random things: Don't refer to yourself in the plural that "we meet" or "our argument." There is one of you and it gets kinda annoying. I won't drop you for it obviously but I might dock you speaks. Also, signpost clearly and number blippy arguments so they're at least somewhat flowable.
Ask me questions before the round if I missed anything. Good luck!
30 Speaks Challenge Questions:
1. In 2015, the city of Melbourne, Australia created a "tree-mail" service, in which all of the trees in the city received an email address so that residents could report any tree-related issues. As an unexpected result, people began to email their favorite trees sweet and occasionally humorous letters. Imagine this has been expanded to any object (tree or otherwise) in the world, and share with us the letter you’d send to your favorite.
2. Lost your keys? Alohomora. Noisy roommate? Quietus. Feel the need to shatter windows for some reason? Finestra. Create your own spell, charm, jinx, or other means for magical mayhem. How is it enacted? Is there an incantation? Does it involve a potion or other magical object? If so, what's in it or what is it? What does it do?
3. So where is Waldo, really?
4. Dog and Cat. Coffee and Tea. Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. Everyone knows there are two types of people in the world. What are they?
5. Joan of Arkansas. Queen Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Babe Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mash up a historical figure with a new time period, environment, location, or occupation, and tell us their story.
6. You’re on a voyage in the thirteenth century, sailing across the tempestuous seas. What if, suddenly, you fell off the edge of the Earth?
7. You are about to be reincarnated into a specific office supply tool in a specific office. Whose office is it, what office supply are you, and why?
School affiliation: Montgomery Blair High School
I have been judging PF debates for 3 years. I am a scientist by profession. I am comfortable with a moderate speed of delivery as long as it is clear and on point. Summary speeches should lay out the big picture and emphasize strong links and responses. I look for full and complete response to the relevant arguments that remain standing. Extend arguments and evidence you deem necessary to win the round. I do not evaluate any kind of progressive debate. I flow extensively throughout the round. For me. argument takes precedence over style. To win an argument in the round, debaters should extend their arguments clearly in summary and final focus. The side with clear weighing will win the round. I do not vote for arguments newly raised after second summary.
Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)
Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas
I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.
One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.
Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.
CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.
DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.
The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.
Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.
Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.
Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.
Very few rounds of judging experience. If you speak very fast, I may not catch your actual intention.
Benjamin Hagwood, Head Coach at BL Debate Academy/Executive Director of NSDA Vancouver
I debated for five years at Liberty University. This will be my third year judging. Since trading places (debater to judge) my view of debate has matured and my perspective has become more open to views that I currently did not have. To begin I will say that I understand that debate is a game, with that being said I realize that some people use it as a place to protest, advocate and discuss their political, social, religious and individual ideas. I used my time as a debater to stretch the rules and practices of an activity that I viewed as net –beneficial to the growth of academics and potentially policy-makers. As a critic I enter a round with my predispositions just like everyone else but I don’t want to limit the discussion that can take place in any round.
1. You have a limited amount of time use it wisely. Collapse the debate down to the voting issues you believe you are winning.
2. Offense is more important than defense.
3. Weigh the debate accordingly.
4. I don't flow cross fire but I do pay attention and if you say it then I count it towards how I will interpret your argument.
5. If no framework is mentioned I will default to Util.
6. I will base my decision based on sound logic and drops on the flow.
7. Don't steal prep time.
8. Don't be rude.
9. Speaker Points: (ways to gain and lose them janks)
a. A tasteful bowtie will definitely increase your overall speaker points. (Max .5 increase)
b. A joke that is actually funny will also increase your speaker points. (Max .5 increase)
c. Bad jokes (Max 1.0 decrease)
d. Offensive language or actions (Max 30.0 decrease)
I am rather easy to talk to if you have any questions. Have fun and be smart when you think of your strategy. Do what you do and I shall tell you if I love it or not.
The stuff you need to read: (do you pref me or not)
1. I think everything in debate is debate-able. I tend to enter the debate believing that I will vote for the team that persuades me that their argument is the superior to their opponents. I will say that I am not amused by offensive language or jokes (you should call people out on what they do though). So if someone does something that I think is offensive and you don’t call them out on it they could potentially still win the round if you don’t say something they will just also have a 0.
2. Not reading a plan text doesn’t necessarily equal a loss in my book. I think great discussions can emerge from different ideas or strategies. This however does not mean that there is no way I would vote against you. If you are reading an argument that magically seems to shift out of every link in the debate that’s probably bad (again that is up for debate, also I think there is a large difference between not having a link and only having bad links).
3. I absolutely love DA and case debates. I tend to believe that people don’t have good defenses of their case anymore because they just believe that no one argues inherency or solvency anymore, just CP’s and K’s. I think a formidable strategy is to completely deconstruct a case and go with a simple DA.
4. I think critical theory is interesting. I have to admit graduate school stretched the theory that I would generally read but it has introduced me to new arguments and helped me grow. But my base knowledge is still critical race theory. This is generally my area of interest but I am definitely interested and reading other forms of critical theory. I will admit Baudrillard is still collecting dust on my “electronic” bookshelf. I intend to start reading more of if soon but so far I have only dabbled in his theories.
5. I think that a well-placed theory violation can change the entire direction of a debate. I think that you can do whatever you want but you probably should be able to justify doing it. Being negative is not enough to be able to run four conditional positions that contradict each other. Those worlds are not hermeneutically sealed…sorry. Actually I am not sorry just don’t run bad strategies.
6. Performance debate is growing and here to stay. That is not to say that you are not making important points, it’s just that generally (and most people won’t admit this) judging a team that executes a good performance is tough because you generally want to watch and enjoy and then remember that you also have to evaluate. Needless to say I am a fan of performance, but only if you do it well. Bad performances…please don’t do it in front of me.
7. Clash of civilization – I haven’t actually judged many of these. I don’t know if I will or not in the future. I will say that if done well I think that framework can be a great strategy against a lot of teams. My particular opinion is that there is probably a better option to run against most teams (that don’t defend tradition notions of debate) but if that’s what you want to roll with then that’s what you should roll with.
8. CP’s do it.
9. Speaker Points: (ways to gain and lose them janks)
a. A tasteful bowtie will definitely increase your overall speaker points. (Max .5 increase)
b. A joke that is actually funny will also increase your speaker points. (Max .5 increase)
c. Bad jokes (Max 1.0 decrease)
d. Offensive language or actions (Max 30.0 decrease)
I am rather easy to talk to if you have any questions. Have fun and be smart when you think of your strategy. Do what you do and I shall tell you if I love it or not.
HEYY MY NAMES TAZ
JUST A BIT BOUT ME I DID WORLD SCHOOL AND A PF DEABTE IN HIGHSCHOOL IM CURRENTLY DOING POLICY.
I might seem like a lay judge but on god I have ever single point that you have made memorized.
write my ballot for me tell me a story “I’ll be going over point blank than point blank than point blank at last I’ll be doing this blah blah blah”. Give me a road map so it’s easier for me to write for ballot.
make impact arguments those stick with me more explain why your world is better than there world and why if we don’t implement your plan the world will crumble apart.
one last thing I have the worst spelling ever (and handwriting) my email is email@example.com let know if you have any questions
AT LAST JUST HAVE FUN. IF YOU CANT BEAT THEM CONFUSE THEM HOORAYY
My background is in parliamentary debate with experience in LD. I take the stance that I am not a tabula rasa but instead am an informed global citizen. In public Forum the goal is to be persuasive and to that end there are a few things that I value
1) Be organized and clear in the arguments that you are making
2) Present warrants to back up and provide evidence for your arguments (the more reputable the source of the evidence, the stronger the evidence is)
3) Impact your arguments and explain clearly the breath and depth of their effect
4) Clash directly with all reasonable arguments made from the other side though they should a) be engaged with to the extent that they are reasonable b) to the extent that they are effective at defending the opposing side
Hope debaters in my room can speak peacefully, not speaking too fast.
Updated for Georgetown -
WRITE THE BALLOT FOR ME! WRITE THE BALLOT FOR ME! WRITE MY BALLOT - BREAK THE 4TH WALL!
I don't like embedded clash when judging, I still pay attention to how your lit interacts with your opponents, but if you want to win don't rely on implicit or shadow offense, explicitly make the argument for me to evaluate it.
Important defaults that I discovered about my judging philosophy:
Solvency is VERY important! In the case where there are two competing advocacies - solvency will be a huge factor in framing my ballot. So do solid solvency comparison - paint a picture of what your advocacy does and what your opponents don't.
It will be very difficult to convince me that material conditions/material impacts don't matter at least a little a bit, you can win that debate if I judge you, just know it will be an uphill battle.
I debated LD for Westside High School for four years, went to a few National Tournaments, and got a state qual my senior year. Make me laugh +.5 speaks for good memes and puns.
Short Paradigms - if you're lazy, but you should read my longer paradigm.
If you're going to read anything graphic, include a trigger warning.
T and Theory - 3
Phil - 1
Ks - 2
Policy/Larp - 2
Tricks - 4 or 5*
*If you're one of those people whose primary strat is to hide a bunch of un-flagged a-prioris and tricks in the 1AC or 1NC and blow one up in the 2NR or 2AR. Strike me and pray to the GCB that you never have me in the back of the room. If you want to read a-prioris highlight or label them in your first speech.
Long Paradigm -
My paradigms are a guideline for debaters but can change depending on how you tell me to evaluate the round, if you have any questions email me:
CX IS BINDING - DO NOT FEIGN IGNORANCE OR LIE IN CX.
T - The violation should not be generic, you should point out how they violate in the shell, and your offense on the shell should be contextualized specifically to that instance of abuse. Describe how that abuse uniquely harms the standards you have set for the round and how that ruins the round and/or is a bad interp. of the topic.
(Non-T Affs) - I'll vote for them, but I'll admit that I am biased towards TVAs and that non-topical affs turn the debate into a monologue. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go for them, just either outweigh or have intuitive responses to those arguments.
Theory - I have a gripe against frivolous theory, reading theory is smart when (1.) the abuse is legit: ex. pics, or (2.) when it's smarter to read theory than to engage on the substance level. However, I don't like when debaters bait theory as a primary strat, I'll still vote on a frivolous shell, but it's going to be an uphill battle for you. I assume reasonability unless you tell me otherwise.
If you don't weigh between the different interpretations of debate in the round and tell me why yours is better when running a counter-interp. It will be very hard to evaluate theory.
I am also becoming increasingly suspicious of the claim "it's not what you do it's what you justify", I'll still vote on theory shells hinging on that argument, but in my 5 years of debate I have never once seen theory change someone's strat or debate meta in general.
Phil - When I say phil I mean like modernism and age of enlightenment type stuff, utilitarianism, Kant, Locke, etc. Whether it takes the form of traditional value criterion debate or you're just setting a standard, I have a soft spot for phil args, so going for these args in front of me is super chill. Don't slack off on the flow though (phil debate doesn't mean sloppy debate), winning framework doesn't necessarily mean you win the debate, you must prove that voting aff or neg is better for your respective framework.
Kritiks - I've read cap, ableism Ks, settler-colonialism, security, dabbled in Deleuze, and I'm familiar with Wilderson (never ran Afropess though). Yet, don't assume I've read your lit base. If I try to contextualize the kritik to the aff or try to conceptualize it for you because you don't explain it to me, 1. that's judge intervention, and 2. I might make a conceptual error because I'm human. Try not to drop the alt, but if you do, explain to me why I should still vote for the kritik. Know your lit, it's super cringe if you don't. If you read a bunch of jargon with 0 explanatory power and shift what the kritik does throughout the debate, I will not be kind to you or your speaks. Also please do work on the line by line instead of shadow extending everything in the overview.
Kritikal affs are cool. Try to be topical, if you're not, be prepared for good T debate or defend why that shouldn't matter or whatever.
Policy/Larp - I love a good plan, I appreciate a good solvency advocate, stay up to date with your uniqueness evidence, weigh really well, know your evidence, all that cool stuff. Please don't make policy debates a race to extinction. Do solid impact weighing.
Tricks - I never ran them, if they're funny I'll tolerate them. If it's generic and lazy, I won't be as amused.
You're one of the best debaters here you did everything I was expecting of you.
29.5 - 29:
You're a great debater, you did really well, absent 1 or 2 critical elements.
28.5 - 28:
You did okay, made a few mistakes on the flow, but whatever.
27.5 - 25:
You did something that was considered taboo like reading a K AFF against a novice from a small school. Exercise some reasonability when considering what is taboo. It's not anything inherently problematic, but...why? Depending on how severe the integrity of debate was compromised and other context-dependent stuff, you could be on either side of this sliding scale.
You did something really bad like (racism, sexism, etc.) and depending on the severity I might give you 0 speaks. If you make it on here. The highest you can get is 25 speaks, and that's assuming that you are a novice, you didn't know any better, that you didn't mean to, that you tried your best to be ethical, etc.
I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.
Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.
Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.
I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.
If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!
I am a flow judge. If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure it is brought up in summary and final focus. Weighing your arguments is very important; I'll vote for the side that does the better weighing for me. Summary and final focus should explain to me perfectly why you win the round. Good luck!
Hi I'm Enya - I'm a 4th year PF debater from Newton South
Add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)
Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns
---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)
2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).
3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.
4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.
(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)
---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***
1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.
2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)
3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.
4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of
5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.
6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.
7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.
8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.
---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)
Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)
Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)
Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)
Lay judge with local experience. Please do not spread.
Hi, I’m Gabby! (they/them)
Please put me on the email chain. My email is email@example.com
I debated for 4 years at All Saints in Tyler (‘20) and now I go to the University of Houston (‘24) where I do policy debate with Patrick and am majoring in biomedical engineering. I was told that I should mention this: I never qualified to the TOC but I did qualify to the NDT last year. Not sure why this matters since competitive success doesn’t guarantee high-quality judging.
NOTE ON E-DEBATE: I kind of suck at flowing online. I have tinnitus and that zoom mic quality really makes my ears scream. Please keep a local recording of your speeches in case of tech issues. Also, make it clear where and when you’re extending arguments. PREP TIME ENDS WHEN YOU SEND THE DOC. I am impatient :(
In general tech>truth, run what you want, but I will not vote on an argument that I don’t hear, flow, or understand. I don’t like doc-botting (not the same as having some pre-written extensions). Please contextualize arguments. Voters are greatly appreciated. Don’t call me ma’am I’m not a ma’am. Feel free to email or Facebook message me after the round with any more questions. If I find that you're purposely clipping in your speech you get an automatic L20. I’ll be more lenient if it’s an internet issue or otherwise unverifiable.
I have a horrible poker face. Watch my non-verbals. I have hearing problems so you should be clear, start sloww then speed up but don’t go more than 80%. S I G N P O S T. I will not cross apply arguments for you. Tell me where to flow things. I’ll vote on almost anything as long as it’s warranted/impacted well and isn’t morally repugnant. I’ll vote on capitalism or extinction being good but not any oppression good args. Presumption goes to the side with the least change. CX is binding. Don’t try to convince me it isn’t. I don’t judge kick arguments. Please just pick one.
Update for LD SepOct Topic: I am a biomedical engineering major. The chances I know more about you on certain parts of your 1AC/DAs are high. This DOES NOT mean I will accept poor explanation and fill in the gaps for you.
Overall: If you’re going to run something you think I won’t understand then err on the side of over-explaining or else I probably won’t vote for it. EXTEND WARRANTS. I WON'T EXTEND ARGUMENTS FOR YOU. I generally don't vote on new arguments made after the 1AR but I can be convinced to make exceptions.
Phil: I did a lot of this in high school but have forgotten a solid amount. Don’t assume I know what the white guy you’re talking about is saying. I probably understand Kant the most. Always loved me some Mouffe. Rawls is cool but kinda cringe. You should put turns on the contention. Independent voters (Kant is Racist!) need warrants and implications. Please don't make me vote on "induction fails" because I will if you reallllly sell it but you'll probably end up with an LPW.
Straight Policy: Did/still do a lot of this debate and I think you should too. Use normal/simple jargon (uq, links, etc.) I still don't understand sufficiency framing tho lol. Zero risk is possible especially if you don’t read a complete link chain. Can you even quantify this stuff otherwise? Idk. If you say uniqueness controls the directionality of the link I will laugh at you. Be efficient. Wacky impact d (mushrooms, bubbles, etc) on case is funny and I like it. Reading it will probably bump your speaks. Smart analytic advantage counterplans are cool. Solvency advocates are cooler.
T/Theory: Please don't make me have to sort through more than 3 shells in a single round. I have a high threshold for voting on "new affs bad" and I EVALUATE DEBATES AT THE END OF THE ROUND. I'm dropping speaks if you read "eval the debate after x speech that isn't the 2ar." Make the abuse story clear. Spikes are fine. Tricks are less fine. If indexicals are true then I evaluate debates under the index that they're not real arguments that can win you the round. I'll vote on frivolous theory but I DO NOT WANT TO. I will not vote on theory args about your opponent’s appearance or clothing. I’ll end up going truth>tech if you annoy me with too many shells. I default competing interps and drop the argument, but if you warrant reasonability and/or drop the debater better than your opponent, then that’s the way I’ll evaluate the shell. I'll vote on paragraph theory but please be clear enough for me to flow it.
Mini Note on Framework/Clash Debates: Being topical is probably good I guess. Negation theory is true. I like "semi-topical" K affs that show how much you've researched/worked. All these debates I’ve judged have been hella boring. Make it funky, make it fresh please. I’m not good at flowing lots of little arguments in these types of debates so you have to be very clear/slow down and sometimes you really just gotta persuade me. I usually think you have a better shot going for K/case in these debates if you're a 2+ off team, but you do you.
K: I’m the quiet 2A of a K team so let that guide your decisions. Don’t have a 4 min long overview and then explain again on the line by line. Pick one, preferably the second. Don’t use big words to explain big words. Use little words. From what I’ve gathered, affect is the ~vibes~ so maybe I’m not the best for the gooey-est of pomo debates. Role of the ballot debates feel more like a role of the buzzword competition. These debates tend to be incredibly irresolvable and still don't give me much of a direction in terms of how the ballot functions (is it an endorsement of a research model? why do you want the ballot?) I will be highly skeptical of you reading an identity-based K and not being that identity. I won’t auto drop you but I probably won’t think it’s a very good debate if you say self abolition 20 times. Make sure the alt resolves the link or I’ll vote aff on presumption. Floating PIKs don’t make that much sense outside of technical offense but if you really sell it I’ll vote on it. Don’t be sketchy about them in CX. Tell me why the link being a disad to the aff even matters. Perms need warrants and implications/net benefits. Low key most Ks are just CPs with multi-actor fiat but that’s just my hot take.
Performances: I think these are pretty neat. Please contact me if the content might be triggering in any way or talk explicitly about queer/trans experiences. Have a theory of power. Explain your method. If you’re playing music or have background noises make sure it’s not too loud.
Tech>Truth. WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME! WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME! Be nice to your opponents. Being rude in cross will hurt your speaks. I really don’t feel a need for you to be spreading in PF. I don’t mind if you say "clear" or "slow" to your opponents if they spreading in a round and you are not comfortable with it. Giving me a framework will only help your case. No framework/standards mean that I default to a cost-benefit analysis. Observations need a warrant, and I will not vote on them alone. Don’t run sketchy/abusive/messed up arguments. Please terminalize/contextualize your impacts (e.g. don’t make your impact “bees will die” without telling me why bees dying should matter). Give good voters (the framework is not a voter) and an impact calc (comparing your impacts with theirs and why yours will matter more).
A note on Speaker points (ALL EVENTS)
rule of thumb: happy Gabby = higher speaks!
I determine speaker points based on a mix of strategic choices, persuasion, and good, positive vibes. IF YOU ASK FOR A 30 YOU GET A 25! Speaks will start at a 28 and go up or down from there. Speed is fine. I’ll say clear 3 times before I dock speaks. Slow down on tags and analytics. Please be nice to your opponent. Snark and sarcasm are fine, being outright rude and dismissive is not. If you fail to read content warnings and your opponent ends up feeling unsafe or triggered in round, you won't get automatically dropped but you’ll get 25. If you purposely misgender your opponent you will get no higher than a 25 and I will find and talk to your coach and school sponsor. Doing the listed things might get you some extra points. Kind of important: I will be very very unhappy if you take more than 20 seconds to send out your doc. More than a minute and you're capped at 29. More than 2 and you're capped at 28.
- for every silly spec shell you add (shoes, internet spec, etc.) - minus a full point
- clown Patrick Fox for not having a life outside of debate (in a way that makes sense in the round) +.2
- read an argument that has to do with space/aliens/frogs and win it +.4
- outspreading someone you know can’t keep up or being an ass to novices/lay debaters - 27 max
- ask for a 30 or other speaks theory = 25 max for not reading my paradigm
Last note- have fun!
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.
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.
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.
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.
The basic Kritiks, i.e. Biopower, Neolib, etc, I understand, but i still want 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.
Though I'm more LD oriented I still see PF as a more traditional form of debate and I expect everyone to follow those rules. 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. I don't appreciate the lack of Prep to look at the others evidence, if you want to look at the opponents evidence please use your prep time. 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.
ik everyone says this but be polite. my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
please add me to email chains
[she/her] i am in first year law school at Durham University in the UK who did PF for 3 years, I have also done Worlds Schools, British Parliamentary and various types of Canadian debate. Thus, I’m a flow judge. Extremely technical terminology might confuse me but normal stuff like de-link, turn, terminal weighing, etc.. works fine.
- be nice ( not necessarily passive but polite, don’t be an bad person)
- no misogyny, racism,homophobia, xenophobia or I will automatically give your team the loss and tank your speaks
- try with people’s pronouns, refer to them as “1st neg speaker” instead of she/he or her/him
- if your opponent drops an arg, tell me
- WEIGH IMPACTS!!! the less i really need to use my brain the better
- i might call for cards after round
- I’ll disclose if tournament allows
- i’m good with speed but be clear
- i am very unfamiliar with K and theory so you will probably lose me. pls don’t run that :)
- if u just read a bunch of cards without analysis, i will be sad
- “extend” this arg does not mean you’re actually extending it.
- humour is cool but like not rude
-i love voters in final focus but no one ik does them so if u do i’ll like u
like i already said, being nice is so crucial. while i completely understand that debate is a fairly aggressive activity, you can be technically aggressive while still being a good person. Attacking the argument until it’s in shreds is lovely, attacking the opponent in any way is unacceptable. Any form of misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia is unacceptable. I understand that pronouns do take a bit of getting used to so try to address your opponents by speaker positions rather than by your perceived opinion of their gender
even though i flow, the round is messy, the more clear you are with what your opponent has done wrong while meta debating, the better. If you opponent drops an arg, pls tell me. Doing this makes my life easier, if you make my life easier, i will like you more, hence, better speaks. HOWEVER, i still flow so don’t just say they drop something when they literally did not.
Beyond mechanization of your arguments, impacts really do matter. I know it’s oversaid but i really care about impacts. If your argument is flawless and not refuted but has no impacts, I will not weigh it. I will only weigh argument that have impacts. With that being said, you need to weigh your impacts to the impacts of your opponents. Just saying “they kill 100 people but we kill 10” is not sufficient. Do you outweigh on scope? severity? What framework should i be weighing on? Utilitarian? Deontological?
- In summary and FF, if you say “weigh our impacts against theirs, we outweigh” i will genuinely be very very sad. Even though I flow and I am a debater, i don’t have magic memory, remind me what your impact that you are weighing against theirs is. Talk about the consequences, I generally prefer arguments with concrete impacts that are measurable HOWEVER, I understand some things just aren’t measurable and if you argument of impact has that, I won’t hold it against you. If your consequences if “happiness”, i understand you can’t exactly measure that. But try to have quantifiable impacts especially if your oppponent does so I can actually make a comparative.
I WILL WEIGH ON A UTILITARIAN BASIS UNLESS I’M TOLD TO DO OTHERWISE (most benefit to most amt of people). If you tell me to weigh on a different basis, tell me why. Why should i prioritize that over this.
if your card seems way way way too good to be true, I will probably call for it. If I am just curious about a card, I will probably call for it.
IF YOU MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE, OR LIE, OR SEVERELY CHANGE THE MEANING, I WILL TANK YOUR SPEAKS SO LOW. pls have some integrity. If you literally fake a card or something, at that point, just use it as analysis. If you feel the need to lie about cards, this is not the debate format for you. Look to worlds or parliamentary styles that don’t require you to do research.
i will disclose if i’m allowed to, i don’t see a purpose in y’all guessing for the rest of the tournament. UNLESS i genuinely need a long time to stare at my flow, in which case, you probably either did not get high speaks, or the round was very very very good. but i’ll disclose if i can
speed is cool but please remember wifi does die, microphones are not clear sometimes. so keep that in mind, speak a little slower than you would in person. However, as long as your microphone and my wifi are good, i don’t see a problem with speed. Additionally, please remember that online debate means that there is lag and often audio gets wacky. If you are literally going to SPREAD, send me a copy of your case.
if you run theory or a K, I’m very very sorry but it’s unlikely you will get my vote. I am very unfamiliar with them and will get very confused. Use it in other rounds, in this round, please don’t. I understand that PF has been changing but I graduate this year so I don’t realllly need to keep up. I also just don’t think they are useful or fair since the majority of teams who run Ks or theories come from large schools with so many resources and I don’t see it benefiting the format overall. Any debate can be equally interesting or productive without them. If you really need to use them, re-evaluate how you approach motions.
Cards are easy to find (sorta) anyone can basically compile 4 minutes of cards, therefore, please explain them. I like analysis! Reading 1000000 cards will not get you the win unless your cards either have explanations in them, or you explain them
- please try your best. that’s the most important thing. Even if you hit a team who you think is unbeatable, try to beat them. Try to learn. Going to tournaments is often most helpful to actually learn. Even if you don’t win, learning from the loss is so important.
- i don’t flow cross so pls bring up concessions and such things
i like humour. with that being send, jokes at the expense of anyone is not cool. if you reference bojack horseman or grey’s anatomy i will be happy :)
good luck if you have any question feel free to ask :)
Yes, on email chain: isaacliu.ludebate [at] gmail.com. Also, please briefly off-time roadmap.
Debated 2 years of policy for Liberty University and did LD and PF in high school. I am fine with spreading if clarity is not sacrificed but will default to tournament norms (and there is a chance I will miss arguments if your case is unorganized). Tell me how to vote; I will vote for anything if articulated well, provided it does not cause in-round violence (i.e. arguing for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.).
I expect you to time yourself and your opponent—I try keep time as well but sometimes forget to start the timer. If you go overtime and I don't catch it and your opponents don't catch it, good for you. If someone points it out, I will dock speaks.
Event-specific things (Skip if policy debate)
Please, please, please don't take too long asking for evidence. If you share evidence in a speech doc like policy does, I will give 0.5 higher speaks (unless the tournament expects everyone to share evidence).
Public forum – full disclosure: my voting record has been favorable to whoever gives the last speech. That doesn't mean always pick second speaker; that means collapse the debate in the final focus and be aware of what your opponents might go for in their final focus. As I believe the second-to-last final focus is inherently more difficult, I will give higher speaks when it is executed well.
I am down with them. I lack familiarity with high-theory post-modernism arguments. I have some familiarity with criticism of anti-blackness and settler colonialism and am quite familiar with kritiks of capitalism and security. Regarding PF and LD, I will default to tournament norms regarding non-traditional affirmatives. For policy, I am 100% down with them, but also find framework persuasive (fairness can be an impact).
More favorable for the affirmative regarding negative counterplans; more favorable for the negative regarding affirmative plans. I tend to find arguments to reject arguments rather than the team more persuasive.
Votes off the flow and how you tell me to vote. Kritiks on the neg or aff* are cool. Don't run abusive affs or neg strats. Spread your heart out*.
*will default to tournament norms for LD and PF
***Please include me in the email chain: email@example.com
I am originally from the Greater Los Angeles, California area. I participated in debate in high school, mainly focusing on Lincoln-Douglass Debates.
Almost 3 years ago, though, I moved to Houston in order to pursue higher education. Currently, I am on the University of Houston Debate team. I am extremely fascinated by debate and I keep learning new things daily. I am a Philosophy and Political Science Double Major with an interest in going into law school. After that, I have no idea.
A little about me (besides education): In my free time, I like to read and write. I mainly read philosophy, history, and historical fiction. I love a good philosophical debate. I would consider myself to be good-humored and easygoing, although my sister might say the opposite. I am bilingual, with both of my parents being born and raised in Spain.
Onto my furry family, in my house, we have 3 cats and a dog, who ironically thinks she is a cat. You may see them on the screen. The cats consist of Picobit, a small grey tabby that is the embodiment of social anxiety, Smores a maincoon mix calico who's unsure of everything, and Gigabyte, a shorthaired calico who mainly sleeps. I then have a rescue Australian Shepherd who is also very anxious, yet hyper and acts like a cat. She even tries to climb the cat tree. I understand if you get interrupted by a bit, it's totally fine. I completely understand.
On to debate:
My number one thing is to please be respectful and kind. We are all here to learn and have fun. Especially during these difficult times, please be welcoming.
2. Since, everything is virtual, please ask if everyone is ready before speaking. Also, I am very understanding of technical issues, if you have a technical issue, please just let me know. We can even take a short tech break if needed.
3. I really enjoy link turns, they make me think. Either way, explain them to me. Do not simply state "Link Turn", please elaborate. I will be extremely grateful and probably will make my flow clearer.
4. Counter Plans should specify how doing the CP would be better than just doing the Aff. Also, when perming the CP, please explain how you can perm. It would be a lot stronger than simply saying "Perm do both"
5. I am quite fascinated by Kritiks, they can be extremely fun. Although, remember those link cards! Also, pretend like I have the attention span of a goldfish when it comes to kritiks, so when you continue it in the next speech, please give me an overview, then develop it.
By now, you may have gotten the impression that I like to think. That assumption is correct. I love a good challenge, especially with it developed in a clear, interesting manner.
6. Feel free to ask questions at the end! There are no dumb questions! If you believe there are dumb questions do exist, believe me, I have asked thousands of "dumb" questions, then, so I may be the perfect person to ask!
Good luck, everyone!
Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence. You don't get to give someone a link and say CTRL F yourself. Prepare your evidence correctly or be dropped.
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
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 7 years since then. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below
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
I will ALWAYS TRY to disclose even if the tournament tells me not to. It is my ethical duty as a debate instructor and judge to give you the best feedback I can after the round and increase your education.
Judge preferences that must be met:
When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must signpost every argument and every response (Parli). If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must 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” in round and you do not comply, there is a good chance you will lose. 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.
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
Please do not spread. Lay judge.
Name: Klaudia Maciejewska
School Affiliation: N/A
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: -
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: -
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 7
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? BP Debates, WSDC, AP
What is your current occupation? Competitive coach
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery: writing down important points, trying to type as much as possible fo being able to deliver RFD
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Comparison of both sides, depends on speaker if prefer clashes or other structure, should provide crucial points for the debate
Role of the Final Focus: unclear what final means
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Allowed but unstrategic - left little time for rebuilding and responding to rebuttal
Topicality: important, arguments should be linked to the particular context
Plans: structure and strategy are helpful
Kritiks: depends on the format
Flowing/note-taking: im writing most of speeches, marking my comments to be sure after the round what i add
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Ideally rebuttal, conclude outcome of rebuttal in summary speech
Hello My name is Anthony Maglaqui. A little background about myself, I did public forum debate for all 4 years of my high school debate career.
My paradigms are as follows:
I am capable of flowing, so consider me a flow judge.
I do not flow cross-x, I believe cross-x is for both teams to extrapolate/gather information and present to me in your rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses.
If you start spreading, I will not continue to flow. I expect you to articulate your arguments in a timely manner.
Please signpost in your arguments.
Who am I:
Public Forum BL Debate.
PhD CS/Cybersecurity candidate
7 Years of Debate mainly in public forum.
I am used to national circuit public forum. I won PKD Nationals in college public forum twice.
I will do my best to come into the debate with no preconceived notions of what public forum is supposed to look like.
Tech > Truth unless the flow is so damn messy that I am forced to go truth > tech to prevent myself from letting cardinal sins go.
Here's the best way to earn my ballot:
1) Win the flow. I will almost entirely vote off the flow at the end of the debate. If it's not in the FF I won't evaluate it at the end of the day.
2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponents clean concede an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.
3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outway argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!
4) Please.. PLEASE extend your arguments from summary to final focus. Public forum is a partner event for a reason. i don't want two different stories from your side of the debate. Give me an argument, extend it through all your speeches and that's how you gain offense from it at the end of the day.
I am fine with K's but please be aware of the following:
Y'all this isn't policy. It's public forum where you have potentially 4 minutes to detail a K, link your opponents to it, and impacted it out. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate and potentially vote on a K, rather I would caution against running a K just to say you ran a K in public forum.
Theory makes debate a better space. Don't abuse it
I can keep up with pretty much whatever you throw at me. Signposting is critical but in the rare case I have trouble I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.
I will drop you if you run one of these. This is public forum.
Speaker points will be given with a couple points of consideration:
1) Logic. Anyone can yell cards 100mph at the top of their lungs. Speaker points will be higher for individuals who actually use logic to back up their evidence. Honestly you should be using logic anyways.
2) Signposting and clarity: Organization and well-built arguments are key in PF and.. ya know.. life.
3) Coding jokes. I am a computer scientist and will probably lose it (.5 SP bump for adaptation)
Calling for evidence
I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.
Any other questions ask me in round!
I have judged quite a bit of Lincoln Douglas in Idaho; however, I am primarily a national circuit Public Forum Coach. I have will no problem following your on-case argumentation. K's, while I have introductory knowledge about, are not my speciality and please adjust accordingly.
I have no problem with counter plans in LD and I will come into the round with an open mind of how LD is supposed to look.
4 Tips for me:
1. Win the flow by extending your arguments and collapsing on key voters.
2. I could care less if you win the value/c debate unless you tell me why it ties to your impacts in a unique scope that your opponent does not.
3. Coding jokes get a .5 SP bump for adaption. (I am a computer scientist and believe adaptation is important to public speaking. But you won't be penalized for this haha)
4. Have fun!
If you have any questions please feel free to ask!
I have judged well over 50 policy rounds in Idaho; however, I have never judged national circuit (TOC) policy. What does this mean for your adaption to me?
Add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Run whatever you want. I have no problem with K's or any other argument some local circuits believe to be kryptonite. I believe debate is a game that has real world implications. I am tech > truth. See #3 for more info
2. I have ZERO issue with fast paced, spreading of disads, on case, and generic off-case positions such as counterplans. You can go as fast as you want on these as long as you are clear in the tagline.
3. If you decide to run something fancy (K's), you will need to slow down a little bit. I have judged K debate, but it is not my specialty and I am not up to date with the literature. But I believe most K's to be fascinating and I wish I judged them more. The most important thing you can do to help me vote for your K is EXPLAIN the links. Links are everything to me <3
Head Coach of US Debate Formats at Vancouver Debate Academy (Present)
Director of Debate at Grapevine High School 20'- 21'
Debate Coach at Trinity High School 16'-20
Assistant Debate Coach for OU 14'-15'
College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'
HS: Flower Mound High School 09'
You can put me on the email chain : email@example.com
NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.
Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater. I ran the following Ks- listed from most to least common:
Whiteness, Settler Colonialism, Security, Futurity, Nuclear Colonialism, D&G, Nietzsche, Fem Security, Baudrillard
*You still need to explain your K lit if I am in the back of your room.
I was a NSDA National Competitor in Student Congress in 08'
I also competed in Extemp, Original Oratory, Impromptu, and Prose.
I have coached students in Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.
I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, and CNDF.
What is most important to me in a round?
ORGANIZATION! I like overviews that actually serve a purpose. I like speeches that tell me where they are going, stick to that roadmap, and tell me where they are on the flow.
FRAMING! You gotta tell me how to frame your impacts- especially in a clash of civilizations debate. If you have impacts functioning in different worlds, clear that up for me so I don't have to intervene. If you have the same impact framing- give me the breakdown of the magnitude and timeframe.
DECORUM! I really do NOT like aggressive CX. You can get ethos without yelling over each other. Find strategic ways to control CX and generate ethos without being mean, please. I also flow CX- so if you say something, stick to it, otherwise- I will buy your opponent's argument about shiftiness.
DEPTH OVER BREADTH! I prefer debates with 5 off or less, but I will not count it against you if you read more. However, I am open to contradictory arguments bad theory if the Aff finds it strategic.
Speaker Point Policy:
My typical pivot point is a 28. You will gain or lose .5 if you do something that justifies gaining/losing a point.
A 30 is not impossible from me, but also not super common.
Ranked 1-8- 1 being most preferred/tolerated arguments, 8 being least preferred
Ks & K Affs:
1- You will not lose my ballot just for running a K. Ever.
1- Make sure your link scenarios aren't ultra tenuous- I need clear and strong connections
2- I actually enjoy a good theory debate- but just like T, don't make it frivolous- run it if you need it and leave it if you can't win on it
CPs & PICS
2- No Topical CPs- I like PICs
3- Don't run it frivolously- prove in-round abuse
4- This kind of depends on context- Affs are welcome to run theory on Politics and I will listen
5- No thank you.
Ranked 1-8- 1 being most preferred/tolerated arguments, 8 being least preferred
1- If you do not have framing in your case- that is a problem
2- I think Ks make A LOT of sense in LD
Theory and Topicality
3- I actually enjoy a good topicality and theory debate, just don't make it frivolous- run it if you need it and leave it if you can't win on it
4- You need to do framing for this to make sense in LD - either by relating to plan text solvency or articulating how the CP works in comparison to Aff methodology
5- Just like with CPs, you have to deal with framing. If the Aff doesn't have a plan, a disad can be pretty tenuous for me
Multiple Conditional Neg Args
6- I am NOT a fan. I am very sympathetic to Aff args about time constraints when you run more than 5 conditional args on the Neg
7- Do not run politics DAs in front of me in LD. I don't think they belong in this event unless there is a plan text and framing is resolved CLEARLY.
8- No thank you.
All of the main preferences apply. Here are my top three suggestions if you have me in a PF round:
1. Be organized- tell me where you are going, where you are, and where you went. I am a gameboard flow person, so giving me signposts and providing direct applied clash is AWESOME.
2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)
3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I DO flow cross-fire.
Please follow the parameters for this event. I am not open to arguments that try to skew the center of a WSD debate.
I have coached PF for about 6 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.
Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.
-I weigh content much more heavily than style
-Have clear logical analysis of evidence
-Use evidence to support arguments; do not use as an argument itself, that said, do have evidence to support each claim
-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate
-Do not assume I know the basics about the topic, I try to be a “blank-slate” judge as much as possible, except in cases of misrepresented evidence. If I read the evidence and it says something completely different than what was said in the round then I will intervene.
-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange
-I do not care as much about flowing everything through in summary and final focus. It should mostly be used to clarify the round for me. If some point is not mentioned again in summary and final focus, then I will judge as that point stands from material in the first half. However, this usually means the weight of the point is up to my discretion
-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other)
-Eye-contact and other stylistic aspects are not weighed heavily (ie. If I can hear you and understand you fully then you're good to go)
-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round
-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer
-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained
-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.
I've done various parli styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with.
I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you. As for theory or whatever, make it simple for me, I'm not a fan but I will always be happy to hear them out.
Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points.
Lay judge with limited local experience. Please do not spread.
I debated PF for 6 years.
I judge off the flow.
I don't flow crossfire, but if something important comes up I will make notes.
Extend your responses and weigh in summary. If you don't extend in summary then I can't count it in final focus.
Answer turns and warrant arguments well.
Give me clear reason(s) why you win and outweigh the opponent.
Do off-time road maps and make flowing easy for me because if I cant flow it then I'm not going to count it in the round.
The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the arguments have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.
Next up, don't be rude! Please respect your opponents.
Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! Speak fast, but don't zoom through your speech! Calm down and speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.
Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims. Role fulfillment is a must-do!
One of my favorite parts of Congressional debate is that it combines debate and public speaking aspects with the performance side of speech. Given the time limits we operate under, clear and concise speeches are important-cite your evidence, refute your opponents respectfully, and be sure to point out your impacts. Do not waste the chamber’s time with games that will run the clock down (yours or your opponent’s during questioning). It’s disrespectful and does not move the debate forward.
I am evaluating the full time in session, not just the 3-minute snippet of speeches: how are you working with (or against) your colleagues? How are you working together as a chamber to get legislation passed? Questions-both asked and answered-do count into my scoring.
The Presiding Officer is more than just a timekeeper. They set the pace, organization, and mood of a chamber. To be a new PO-or to be a PO at a high-level competition-can be a risk. Their effort is considered when I score. Point of order: There is no mathematical pattern as “random” selection for questioning.
I’m currently a policy debater for George Mason University. Before that I did 4 years of PF in WACFL. She/they pronouns.
Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.
TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind though that even though debate is a game, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that
K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your C/I, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.
FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an arg and fairness isn't an impact. I usually default to competing interps. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are useful for mitigating offense against fw. Contextualize your fw blocks to the round instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from NDT semis half a decade ago.
Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the team but will reluctantly vote on it if dropped.
DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. Answer every DA even if it doesn’t make a ton of sense. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of debates, and I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right.
Ks: These days I'm a k debater and am most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, fem stuff, cap, and debility. Still, please explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about (especially if you're running high theory). I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the plan vs the alt, and explain the alt very clearly. That being said, I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is not strategic.
CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff.
General: Tech > truth (mostly), debate is a game, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round i.e. authenticity checks or bringing in drama from other rounds/tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions.
Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I usually vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective evidence comparison. My 2 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, and (2) saying "de-link".
If you do a good impression of any current GMU debater or coach during your speech I will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.
Name: Pallob Poddar
School Affiliation: North South University
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: less than 1
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: less than 1
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: less than 1
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: less than 1
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? I'm not a coach
What is your current occupation? Student
My opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery: Not too fast cause greater persuasion won't be achieved if you talk too fast.
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Big picture but don't generalize opposition's case. You still need to engage with their each and every arguments.
Role of the Final Focus: Persuading the judge why your team wins.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Will be counted until the final focus.
Topicality: The most important thing.
Plans: Specific plans or models are not required.
Kritiks: Try to engage with the opposition's best case.
Flowing/note-taking: Hugely important so that you don't miss out important things.
I value argument more but I also notice the style.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in my opinion that argument has to be extended in the rebuttal because summary speeches should focus on the summary of the debate.
If a team is second speaking, the team should answer to it's opponent's rebuttal first in the rebuttal speech. If they have enough time after that, they can cover the opponent's case as well.
I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire.
I would judge the debate as it was. So, try to engage with the opposition's case more and make the debate easier to judge.
Was in PF for 3 years and I competed on the local and national circuit. Flow judge.
I will always evaluate the framework first and then look towards who best provides offense under the framework. PLEASE COLLAPSE, going for everything in round takes away from your ability to provide a narrative for your arguments. I will only vote on an argument if it’s present in both summary and final focus. That means extending both the warrant, giving a detailed analysis, and the impacts of the argument. Extending card tags alone is not enough. Most importantly, Weigh. If neither of the teams weigh, I’ll be forced to intervene and determine what I think is more important, which you might not necessarily agree with in the end. On a final note, I'm a stickler with evidence, meaning I appreciate evidence that explicitly says what it is that you are trying to communicate in the round; I appreciate logical analysis as well, but there are some instances where having both may serve to benefit you. Probably didn't cover everything so feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.
I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.
Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage
Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages
Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.
Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.
Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.
I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.
For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf
Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.
im a flow
add me to email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
tech over truth unless ur tech is ridiculous.
number responses in rebuttal PLEASE
second rebuttal only has to frontline turns.
love case/rebuttal overviews and framing. has to be extended throughout for me to evaluate it.
summary and final focus should mirror each other
prog if u want ig.
if ur off time roadmap is "im going down their case" don't bother ill get annoyed.
if u want me to see a card, just tell me to call for it
if its late in the tournament, ive probs judged a lot, and im tired. keep it interesting.
pls keep ur own time.
- Debate is a game so tech>truth
- Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
- 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"
- I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
- give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
- defense isnt sticky
- Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
- absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics
- Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
- For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
- I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
- Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
- Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability
- Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
- case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
- do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
- Dont do "extend our link"
- for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
- please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
- this also goes for arguments that are conceded
- First summary
- Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
- Second summary
- This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
- Defense must also be extended
- Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
- Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
- I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
- If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
- I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
- You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
- Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it
Name: Shirsha Songshoptak
School Affiliation: Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: <1
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: >1
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: >4
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: >4
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? - Coach, Australs
What is your current occupation? - Undergraduate Student
General Notes for speakers:
1. Being aware of the information provided below might be helpful for speakers.
2. I appreciate teams mechanizing their assertions, justifying them with appropriate examples and finally doing a weighing of the material to tell me why that is important in the debate. I think a clear structure is very important in a debate.
3. Instead of giving be random symptoms of the scenario provided, it's always better to address the underlying structural issues. The way to do this can be by analyzing examples or trends.
4. Debate is a game of back and forth. So engagement should be prioritized and anything which demands a rebuttal should be responded to.
5. Judge's jobs get a lot easier when comparison and weighing are done right. Debates are won on margins. So along with responses, it's very important to concede to some things and weigh them to tell me why still your side is winning the debate.
6. It's good to do a best case worst case comparison in debates to show why you have the comparative edge over other teams.
7. Precision and specificity are skills a speaker should aim to have. Rather than going about the debate haphazardly, doing a bit of framing and meta-debating commentary can make a difference. Don't just say you win debates, say exactly where the other teams fail and how your speeches fill in those mistakes to win you the debate.
8. Please don't make arguments based on information that an average intelligent voter is unlikely to know. This can lead to a lack of understanding on part of the judge due to the specialized nature of the knowledge.
9. Maintaining equity is very important. Make sure you're respectful to everyone in the room and that no one can feel uncomfortable because of anything you do or say.
10. It's good to provide a clear walkthrough or illustration of the point you're trying to make. In debates that require a model, it's better to be very detailed when necessary.
11. It's okay to speak quickly as long as you're clear.
12. As long as you're comprehensible, style does not make any significant difference in the debate. Different debaters have varying styles because of their different upbringings, and it is something that should be respected.
13. In debates that are really close, it's important to boil the debate down to the most important questions and telling the adj why you are able to answer them better.
I'm a Public Forum coach and big advocate of empowering student voice. It does not matter to me whether you speak quickly or slowly. That's a matter of your own comfort.
I will be impressed by sound research, critical thinking and persuasive argumentation. Outline your intentions and accomplishments clearly. More important than anything is respect for your opponents' and the experience of debating. They will present valid arguments too, so don't tell me everything they said was wrong. Be judicious yourself as a debater and consider arguments that are more convincing in terms of impact.
Use crossfire to clarify any misconceptions. It's not a place to bring up new information.
Call cards only when seeing them will bring true value. Sometimes this is done to stall for time and often that exposes less than stellar evidence. Be careful not to set this trap for yourself.
Don't tell me everything your opponents have done failed, unless it has without question. Be respectful of all in the room.
Most of all, enjoy, reflect and grow from every debating experience. I will try to give you the best feedback I can to help you learn and grow.
I am constantly inspired/concerned by the paradigm of my teammate, Shrayes Upadhyayula.
Contact me on FB (Anya Tang) or anya.tang917[@]gmail.com with questions, concerns, or just for the email chain. I'm always happy to support younger debaters, especially low-income students or QTBIPOC. Provided below is my paradigm for Georgetown.
Background - 5yrs of debate. CX, LD, PF. I primarily read performance affs/negs. I don't think achievements are too important/constructive for qualifying my background but if necessary: I won/bid at the Milo Cup, got speaker awards at various tournaments, did stuff, and was ranked 5th in the nation via speaker points by NSD for the 20-21 LD season. I've been judging since 2018. I've been teaching since 2018.
Preferences - performance/k aff/k neg/non-topical affs>policy>theory>tricks
General - You can call me Anya, or Ari, if you're more familiar/were introduced to me using either name. I answer to Mx. (pronounced Mix), debater, judge, and any other gender-neutral term. If you're reading this, I'm probably judging your PF round. (If I'm judging your LD round, email me before the round or let me know you need my LD paradigm before the 1AC and I'll speechdrop a file. I keep my event-based paradigms separate for accessibility.) Debate/dress/perform in a way that feels good for you, and contact me before the round if you need any accommodations. If you don't want to or can't wear a suit/tie while debating, that's fine. If you want to talk about your personal relationship to the topic instead of citing academic authors, that's also fine. I need rigorous warranting for preferring a certain model of debating over another, or for rejecting certain arguments or forms. I think debate as it is now has a dominant culture of inaccessibility in both form and content that makes it difficult and exhausting to stay in the activity, especially for marginalized people. In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. I will evaluate many things, and I will tell you before a speech if I do not want to/cannot evaluate anything. I am generous with speaks and give the highest possible speaks each round barring anything egregious.
People who've influenced me - Chris Randall, Eli Smith, Dahlia Bekong
Community Clause: The only situation where I will give automatic 30s barring harmful behavior is when debaters use debate as a space to advocate for real-life ways to take action or use debate to create affirming spaces for themselves and their communities. Some examples include but aren't limited to -- passing out condoms/dental dams as a form of healthy sex education during round, passing out a zine on harm reduction, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid). The education you take from this round should be something that can inform your change in a local community no matter where you are/who you are. I hope the rounds I judge reflect that.
Preferences - Just do your thing, I mess w/ whatever cool stuff you bring to the table especially if it's developed from liberationist/third world pedagogies. I'll throw out the flow if you warrant why, you don't have to read cards but if you do make sure you cite them properly. L20 and a conversation with Tab for debaters who read non-Black Afropess, sexism good, racism good. If you're gonna spread after reading this paradigm I'm gonna raise my eyebrows and think, "Really?" then continue to flow whatever's on the doc to the best of my abilities (you're gonna have to signpost when you go off the doc, please).
My defaults - truth>tech, disclosure bad for BBIA (Black, Brown, Indigenous, Asian people), fairness is not a voter.
Inclusion - Debate is not a game. It is a communication site in which the personal and political are inseparable, one and the same, and has material/emotional impacts for students & educators alike. Contact me during the round via email if anything happens that makes you feel unsafe/uncomfortable or if you need me to speak to tab or a coach. Also: please stop using gendered language in rounds. ("You guys," "she/he said" when debaters have not openly disclosed these pronouns - if debaters have disclosed their pronouns, please just use their pronouns. If nothing was disclosed, please use they/them) It takes extra labor for some people (including me) to cope with and process. As a transgender person, I am telling you: do not use "you guys" in round. "You all" works fine. The words you say have a real impact on other people.
Speed - Include a speech doc and go 80% on tags if you plan on spreading, please. If your opponents are speaking too quickly, please feel free to verbally clear them. If you are verbally cleared, please slow down for your opponents.
Evidence - If you tell me to call for a piece of evidence, I will do so after the round and before my decision. Please be clear what the implication should be and why. Tell me if I should drop a debater or if I should just drop the argument for bad evidence ethics.
Anything else - The language of this paradigm was specifically chosen to indicate that nothing I write above is rigid. Do things that you want to do. If you get to the room early - preflow please. Let me know if you don't know what that is and I will help you. You may play music in the room before the round if you want. If you have any tech questions, accommodations, or general concerns - always feel free to ask me. I will advocate for you and your needs to the best of my capabilities.
Update for sitting - I've sat one time while judging -- in the Doubles of Georgetown PFJV. I sat and squirreled aff because the neg did not sufficiently extend by the final focus even if they won one part of the link debate, the aff is the only team that extends any offense that exists independent of the link debate they are losing. Please email me with questions or concerns.
Please add me to the email chain at email@example.com
Experience: CX for 5 years (Grade 6-10), PF for 2 years (Grade 10-11), World Schools (Grade 12)
Furthest I’ve Gone in Tournaments: Taiwan Nationals Winner/Top Speaker 2015 in CX and Quarterfinals in TOC PF Silver in 2016
Judging Style: I am a flow heavy judge. However, I will only write down what you say and will make judgments based on your arguments only. For example, if your opponent double-turns themself but you don't address it, I will not count it against your opponent. I will only use my own judgment and experience if both sides have equal arguments.
Frameworks: If you have a framework, I will judge based on it. If you have a framework and your opponent doesn't bring up a counter-framework, the debate will be judged based on your framework.
Theory/Kritiks: I am okay with theory but will need you to explain it carefully. Do not play the theory game if you are unable to explain all your links. It is NOT my burden to understand all the possible Kritiks out there. IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT I WON'T VOTE FOR IT. It is your responsibility as the debater to explain the K if you run it. I do prefer DAs/CPs to Ks. I’m generally good with Marxism Ks, Feminism Ks, Ableism Ks, and Race Ks (I ran Afro-Pessimism and Afro-Nihilism in the past) but anything beyond these I’m going to need clear explanations about the theory. I also need you to have an impact on your K or else I don’t see a point in it.
LD debaters: Please do not expect me to understand every single theory thing that pops up. I'm comfortable with the basic ones used in CX, but please play safe and pretend I don't know much.
Impacts: It is extremely important to me that your case and arguments have a tangible impact. If the argument is part of a link game, that's fine but the link game must end in an impact. Do not leave me thinking so what? If that happens and the opponent makes a decent counterargument, I'll give it to them.
Speed is fine but please be clear.
I am a PF debater with 7 years of experience. I will instantly drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bullying, or other personal attacks. In terms of arguments, I am definitely tech over truth. If you don’t respond to arguments or responses, I will weigh them even if the arguments are ridiculous or false. Make sure to frontline everything you want to extend. If you decide to drop a contention, make sure you have responded to all turns on that argument, or the other team will still be allowed to extend turns.
Speaking- I am fine with speed, but make sure you signpost arguments, weighing, and which side of the flow you are on. Make sure your speech is clear with not a lot of blank time.
Frontlining- I prefer you frontline in the second rebuttal.
Summary- I regard summary speech as the most important speech in the debate. I will not flow anything in the final focus that is not in summary so make sure you bring up the major voting issues by summary speech. Weighing should be brought up by summary speech at the latest, if not already brought up in rebuttal.
Weighing- In terms of weighing, impacts weighing is important but it is also important for you to discuss why your links hold up more than theirs, and extend the warranting behind your contentions.
Crossfire- I will not flow crossfire, but I will be listening, so if anything important is said in the crossfire, you must bring it up in your speech. I expect civility in cross, so continually interrupting your opponent or being overly aggressive will cost you speaker points.
Cards- I am fine with paraphrasing, but if a card is important to the outcome of the round, I may call for it. If you can’t produce a card or have misrepresented a card, I will ignore the argument. If you have deliberately and extremely misrepresented a card, I might drop you.
Time- I will time speeches and prep, but I expect teams to also keep track of their own time.
If you ask the opponent if water is wet in cross or reference Hamilton songs in a speech, I will give you an extra speaker point
Good day everyone:
My name is Giri Venkatraman- I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.
I plan to be a traditional judge; my favorite topics are healthcare and politics. As contestants, please avoid spreading and I will keep the rounds that I judge simple, and signpost my arguments
Thanks-looking forward to it !
I've judged in the Canadian University circuit for a while. I like cases with clear mechanisms that engage and weigh out against the other team. In general, I award wins to whichever team contributed to a higher quality of debate overall. Feel free to speak fast, although I might not flow everything if you try and speak as quickly as physically possible for a human to speak. I won't credit anything that isn't said in the round, so if a team hasn't engaged with one of your points please do point this out for me or else I may not notice. I will not read evidence unless it becomes a point of contention, so if evidence is bad please tell me why. Off-time road maps are appreciated. Any type of theory is completely fine with me.
I am a former collegiate debater and head coach with multiple years of experience in all formats of debate. I have debated competitively for eight years, so this is nothing new to me. Below are some considerations you should have when you have me as a judge;
1). I flow everything in the round, so make sure to clearly address all arguments in round. If it is not on my flow, I consider it a dropped argument. Speaking fast is not an issue for me, but make sure that your pace isn't too fast. I want to be able to comprehend what you are saying.
2). Speed in a round is not typically a concern for me; however, if it gets to the point where it is incomprehensible, I will not be able to appropriately flow your arguments correctly. Please keep this in mind not only for your judge but for your fellow competitors.
3). I want debate to be as comfortable for everyone as possible; to that end, I expect civility in round between competitors. This is not usually an issue, but it warrants a notation in this paradigm because I have seen rounds where competitors are not civil.
Finally, I think this specific time that we live in requires a round of "thanks" to the competitors and coaches who are competing. Virtual competition is not easy, but y'all are showing that it is possible. No other activity can do what we are doing right now, and it is wonderful to see everyone compete despite the situation we find ourselves in.
Email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
-Grady 2018/Atlanta Urban Debate League
-University of Texas of Dallas 2022
- Former Assistant Coach for the Atlanta Urban Debate League which includes Grady, Decatur, Cross keys, Westlake, Rockdale, and Roswell.
Done little to no work on water, so be careful to avoid jargony terms with me.
In HS I debated mostly on the center right, mostly reading policy arguments and throwing the occasional middle of the road K with some trolly argument. As I have moved through college I have moved more to the left, reading mostly critical arguments with occasional policy arguments. I say this to show I have a familiarity with a wide range of perspectives in debate, and will likely understand enough of what you're saying/doing to render a competent decision.
There is more or less a hegemony of inter-subjective meaning that has been created in debate. There isn't much of a outside to that hegemony. That being said the following is a articulation of where I may diverge from said project, which may influence close debates.
Biases are inevitable I do my best to check most of them at the door, but some degree of intervention is inevitable. Tabula rasa doesn't exist and those who subscribe to such paradigms deluded themselves into a false sense of objectivity. We aren't debate robots, own your beliefs and biases because they show soul.
The question I ask my self the most in listening to debates is, "why do I care?" the team who answers this better almost always wins. Which is a long way around everything you say in front of me needs to have a impact attached to it, or a reason why this means you win, if the argument you are making doesn't have this odds are its a waste of both our times.
I view my role as a judge first and foremost as an educator. What does this mean? it means I view debate as an inherently educational activity and my role as a purveyor should be oriented to increasing its pedagogical value.
This means in Theory/T/FWK debates I am simply unpersuaded by fairness and ground claims that rely on some intrinsic value to those things, and that you are going to need to convince me in some way that there is educational value to your model of debate. Not to say that I won't vote on fairness claims, I have and I likely will continue to in the future.
Please do not make sweeping adaptations in front of me, ie choose to not read T/FWK or not go for it in favor of some K you have no practice with or opt to read a impact turn you have never ran. I would much rather see a debate where two sides are executing what they are best at then changing what they are about in some skewed rush to appeal to me.
I come from a technical background so I usually do my best to default to LBL, meaning what the debaters themselves said how they said it. AS opposed to reconstructing debates through reading cards after the fact. I read along as the debate goes on, but I will really only read ev after a round if I've been instructed to, or a core part of the debate hinges on a interpretation/quality of one or several pieces of evidence.
Truth holds a strange place in debate, debate requires a certain suspension of disbelief in order for it to function. As arguments from the real world, be it academia or the public sphere, go through the debate machine and it's various funhouse mirrors they come out distorted and sometimes even unrecognizable from their original counterpart. However, this becomes necessary for us to have the types of debates debate seems to like, given time constraints and the need to make the game operable. While criticisms of this model of debate and its consequences are certainly invited, this is simply where we are. However, what does this mean for truth in debate? Do we throw it out with the baby? As of now I have not come down on a clear answer, and prefer to cop out to deferring to the terms the debaters set for the standard of proof for argumentative claims in the round. Usually this means defaulting to tech over truth since that seems to be the game model most teams choose to play by, but appeals to truth over tech in the 1ac may shift my default.
Considering most the rounds I judge are clash, I have found that in policy aff v K and debates I weigh fwk more heavily than other judges. In so far as fwk is a debate about the terms of the debate, what matters in this debate, what this debate should be about, what my role or perspective should be, what kind of decision making process are best for this debate, and the kinds of research that should or should not be promulgated. For me these are filtering/judge instruction arguments that operates as a kind of way to interpret say the link debating alt debate and so on. And it seems I am more conscious of or find arguments about the hat I should wear/lens I should look through more important than others. Especially, since I would much rather listen to what the debaters say the debate should be about and how it should be adjudicated as opposed to me imposing my own debate dogma (is that dogma?). Aff teams strangely do a bad job of pushing back here opting to a non fwk fwk of I should get my aff, which most K fwks are never really gonna disagree with rather its the terms at which the aff should be understood or debated at. Arguments about fiat being illusionary are not very important to me, which is the only kind of fwk arg this seems to be effective against. It seems more effective for aff teams to defend institutionalism or a games perspective since that is where the debate is happening.
I tend to think most CP's compete through NB's, that is there is a DA that the CP avoids the aff links to. CP theory is generally obtuse and clunky that being said I do understand it and tend to think the neg should get to explore a plethora of ways to approach beating the aff, but I certainly can be convinced of, say, 50 state fiat bad.
Please read impact turns, I like them and wish more people read them.
I appreciate cheap shots, I tend to think people underestimate the educational value of trolly arguments and "cheap shots".
I've competed in and taught speech and debate for 25 years in a number of formats, so feel free to run whatever you'd like. I enjoy old school case arguments as much as Ks, performance, and theory, but expect strong link and impact work regardless of the argument. I am very high flow, so shouldn't have an issue with speed or tech, but will try and get your attention if I'm having trouble following you. Specificity through good research wins positions, generally. Comparative weighing is a must. Feel free to ask before the round if there's anything specific you'd like to know about and have fun.
Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!
My name is Ellen! When I judge, I mainly look for skilled speaking style, complete and understandable arguments with valid evidence, and well-thought out refutations.
Add me to your email chain email@example.com
What is your debate/judge experience?
Former debater/judge/coach in HS and in College.
What kind(s) of performance is effective and increases your odds of winning?
Articulate measurable outcome(s) delivered by feasible solution(s) aligned with the nature of the objective(s). They should not become unmoored from reality.
Establish cause-and-effect relationship between upstream action(s) and downstream impact(s) through facts, evidence, logical reasoning...etc.
Root-cause followed by correlation and attribution.
What kind(s) of performance is counter productive?
"Spreading" inane arguments.
Dumping statements without logically linking the root-causes driving the symptoms.
Rude, talk over opponents.