Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops Public Forum Tournament
2021 — Online, MA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Public Forum paradigm
I now coach speech (mostly extemp) and congressional debate, but I have judged PF and LD for the past 12 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t…
I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.
Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.
Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.
I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.
And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.
Former PF Debater.
Worlds- One of the original members of the Class of 2014 (the first generation) of USA Debate. I have judged and taught worlds before so I am fairly experienced in the format. What I mainly look for is clarity and engagement. The clear explanations of arguments are key in any form of persuasive argumentation. As for engagement, I want to see debaters engage with all ideas and arg presented in a debate, not simply repeat their analysis in hopes that I magically forget about the opposing side.
PF- 3yr PF debater and 6-year instructor at HDCSW. I look for impact calculous. Tell me the impact of your arg and what it means in the real world. Then tell me why that matters more than your opponents. While that may sound simple many debaters think that simply saying " ours is more important" is a convincing weighing mechanism. I'm fine with speed but a warning: You should be gauging your clarity when speaking fast, if I don't understand you then it will be hard for me to flow. This is all up to your discernment.
Hi! I'm Chelsea. I'm a debate coach currently working for the Harvard Workshops.
I want the round to be safe and fun, so please be nice, and read content warnings with replacements if applicable. If you need any accommodations, or just need an adult to talk to, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. This also works for the email chain.
I'll evaluate any argument that's frontlined, fully extended, and isn't exclusionary. I'm comfortable evaluating any progressive arguments. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Don't need to extend defense until after it's frontlined. I'm good w/ any speed, just be able to send a speech doc if it's unclear.
Debated PF for 4 years at Millard North
Speech docs are wonderful (email@example.com). I am not the best at evaluating theory or K's so read them at your own risk.
Flay judge. Appreciate clear weighing. Try and tell me in FF why your argument is winning compared to theirs, not just that yours is better.
I am really nice with speaks unless you do something problematic.
Completely unrelated but if you know Kenny Zhu let me know before the round.
Director of Debate at the University of South Florida
Yes, email chain - sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom
- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.
- Truth > Tech. I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. All I mean is that I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious.
- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.
Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:
- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.
- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.
- Ethos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.
- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision
Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.
While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.
- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.
- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.
- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.
- I will vote on Framework. That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.
- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.
- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.
- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"
-Presumption is always an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan OR a Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both. I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.
- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.
- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.
- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like its interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).
I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.
- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.
- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).
- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”
- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...
I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilize a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams then there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).
THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION
There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion as been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies requires an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.
Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.
My debate experience:
Current assistant coach at Trinity Prep
3 Years of NFA-LD Debate (Current debater at Illinois State University)
4 Years of Public Forum debate
4 Years of Congressional debate
It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.
- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.
- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.
- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.
- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.
- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.
- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts
- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.
- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.
- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.
- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.
-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style
-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.
- If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.
I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged national circuit tournaments, including the ToC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.
Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.
I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me. I will stop flowing if you are speaking too fast, so please pay attention to that.
I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.
If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do.
I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.
As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.
Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.
Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact withtout warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.
The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.
DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!
DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.
And finally progressive debate-I really don't have preferences for progressive arguments, except that you do them correctly, and are not using them as a gimmick to win a round. I will evaluate Ks and theory, but they are not a huge part of debate in my state in PF, run at your own risk.
TLDR: Did PF and LD in high school. Qualled to TOC senior year for PF. Policy debater now. 2N last year. double 2 This year. Most of my 2NRs last years was CP+DA. Tech > Truth, Don't clip evidence and paraphrase. LARP=K>Theory+Phil>Tricks. No tricks please. Explain your arguments not going to do that for you. Cards+Spin>Cards>Spin alone. I don't ever read the speech doc. Your job to be clear, and my job to flow.
Chain is firstname.lastname@example.org
treat me like a policy judge with a preference for the round to look more like "one-person policy." That means I would prefer the 2NR to be a CP, DA, CP+ DA, T, or K. I will default to no RVIs but I am very open to them considering the time structure of LD.
K's need an alt
Familiar with afropess, cap, security, fem ir, settler, and high theory. Everything else is kinda bleh for me so explain your Buddhism K.
Don't like voting on theory so much. Almost always going to be reject the arg and not the team. Disclosure isn't a reason for me drop a team, just a good norm. For theory also please slow down when reading analytics. also aff on T neg on condo/cp theory. For ld kiddos I'm not going to vote on some blippy theory arg that makes no sense. Also I will entertain RVIs considering LDs speaking time. I can however be persuaded otherwise.
I go for fmwk the most in the 2NR against AFF ks. LD and cx can go crazy with it. Also, if the NEG is winning the TVA, I will have a hard time voting aff. Also Limits > Ground > Some random education Impact
consistency of ff + summary is key. Weigh please. 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything.
Speed for PF
fast is fine, however something to note is that if you haven't practicing spreading before don't try it because I can keep up with speed. I will yell clear twice and then speaks will tank.
Losing speaks 28-28.8 unless otherwise (great close round (+), something __ist said (-))
Winning speaks (28.5-29.5)
29.5+ must blow me away.
Postround me all you want until you run out of time. Judges have way too big of an ego imo.
if you have any questions just email me before the round or ask before the round.
Implicate turns, and weigh them in the back half of the round. Defense is sticky so you need to rebuild. I can handle speed, but I don't prefer it over zoom. Don't go for everything in summary collapse, story tell make it clean.
Feb Topic - It's on balance if you don't weigh, just extending isn't enough on these types of topics.
Hi all, I'm a 4 year high school PFer turned college parli debater. My pronouns are he/him/his. Email is email@example.com if you have any questions at any point.
Honestly, I'm a pretty straightforward judge. I judge off the flow by directly comparing whatever arguments each team has extended through summary and final focus. If you tell me how to weigh one of your arguments against one of your opponents', I'll weigh it that way. If you don't tell me how to weigh, I'll end up just having to make a judgment call and/or draw inferences based on the rest of the arguments on the flow. I don't want to have to do that, and you DEFINITELY don't want me to have to do that, so put a lot of care into your weighing analysis in the back half of the debate. Past that, I'm supremely flexible with just about everything, as long as it's okay with the others in the round. At the end of the day this is your round, not mine.
On speaker points: I don't have a formula for speaker points because there's no one way to be a "good" speaker.
Finally, do your best to avoid acting like a bad person. I understand that this is a high-tension activity, especially when stakes are high, but be sure to keep yourself in check before being disrespectful, hateful, or otherwise mean-spirited. We're all human beings before we're debaters, and it's important to me that we all remember that everyone has a place in this activity.
Did public forum debate at Blake for 4 years.
I can flow public forum speed.
When it comes to evidence, read cards. At the very very least, you need to have a card with full qualifications (not just the url) ready if your opponents call for your evidence.
2nd rebuttal needs to frontline the answers from 1st rebuttal as well as answer the opponents case. Summary needs to collapse and weigh. Summary and final focus need to mirror each other. In order for an argument to make it into my ballot, it must be in summary and final focus. Signpost everything.
In order for something in crossfire to be flowed through, it must be brought into speeches.
I am still learning how to evaluate progressive arguments. If you plan on reading any theory, kritiks, etc., please fully explain the arguments fully and clearly, and I will do my best to evaluate them.
Please time your own speeches and crossfires. Speech times: constructive 4 mins, rebuttal 4 mins, summary 3 mins, final focus 2 mins
Be respectful of your opponents and your partner. Racist/sexist/homophobic/any other hateful and offensive arguments won't be tolerated.
If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask!
If I missed anything, you can also refer to Alessandro Perri's paradigm. (Hi Ale!)
updated for: Greenhill
- coach at the university of chicago laboratory schools
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on topicality/fw vs kritik/performance affs, which is supported by my voting record. i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i see more policy v policy debates because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.
coaching at uclab for several years. i've judged 3 water resources debates so far, and will probably have >50 rounds by the end of the season. i occasionally coach and judge PF and camp (harvard). former policy debater from maine east, (north shore, wayne tang gharana) with some college debating at iowa. i identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. this means i haven't spent my summers deeply reading into the topic aside camp files. it also means you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.
**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation by being more forgiving in articulation. if you cut something clever, you want me on your panel. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory. my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division, 28.4 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)
i think debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. i don't enter the round presuming plan texts as necessary for a topical discussion. i enjoy being swayed one way or the other debate to debate on k affs vs framework. overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. i used to be a HUGE t & spec hack. nowadays, the they tend to get messy. so some flow organization is much appreciated: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i do not enter the round with an assumption of the necessity of plan texts. argument of T through analogy, metaphor, exclusion/inclusion is just as valid as a discussion of voters; i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and/or(?) creativity.
i enjoy performance, original poetry, rap, singing, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory" and critical identity politics literature & debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies help a lot. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk.
**spec, theory, and ethics challenges**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.
i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence. debate is a competitive environment which means i take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.
on traditional theory args, whatever happened to presumption debates? i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate and more than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system and may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round
you can ask me about:
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):
I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.
Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.
Evidence quality is very important.
I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.
Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.
Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.
I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.
I reward debaters who think outside the box.
I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”
Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.
While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.
The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.
I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.
Relax. Have fun.
For HDC: Please be mindful of rhetoric when responding to race and structural violence arguments;
to summarize my paradigm: a dropped argument is true, collapse, and please weigh. I will not evaluate any new arguments brought up in second final focus, in fact, summary is a little to late to be reading new defense. If its in ff, it must be in summary as well. Also, if you are first rebuttal, I would prefer that you don't go over your own case as no one has responded to it yet. Additionally, there is no need to tell me if the framing is CBA/util.
Also TIME YOURSELVES and also TIME YOUR OPPONENTS. sometimes im not looking at my stopwatch so its on you to keep your opponents honest.
If you go over by 30+ seconds and I have to cut you off, I will dock speaks.
For Online Debate:
Please turn on your cameras.
Debated 4 years on the national circuit at Cranbrook in MI. Currently a freshman at Carnegie Mellon
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
-Speed is fine but don't spread, I'll clear you if needed.
-Roadmap and signpost (i guess if someone else in the panel hates roadmaps, then you don't need one)
-A dropped argument is a true argument (if its extended properly)
-Any offense needs to be in both sum and FF. Extend warrants and impacts too, not just author names and tags.
-Theory is fine if its used to check back real abuse. I default to competing interps/yes rvi. I will evaluate K's but I am less confident with my ability to handle them properly(I've only ever done PF). No tricks.
-I presume whoever lost the toss unless you give me reasons to do something else
-Trigger warnings are necessary
-I am personally not a fan of probability weighing. If you win the links, then the probability is high...
-2nd rebuttal must Fl turns.
-My threshold for responses against second rebuttal offensive overviews will be low.
-First summary should extend defense. you don't have to go for everything, just one piece of dropped TD is enough.
-Weighing must start in summary.
-All offense must be weighed
if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds or all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, I will disregard the evidence as though it doesn't exist. Please send the email chain to both email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!
Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.
Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams.I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.
Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.
Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.
Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!
I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)
I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well
Clear voters are tremendously helpful!
- theory is totally fine, but make sure it is warranted, and not run absolutely wrong. I also absolutely hate frivolous theory in PF so do with that information as you will.
Provide impact calc throughout the round
- I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
- CLASH IS KEY
Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.
- Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.
2nd rebuttal should rebuild!
- extending over ink makes me very sad :(
Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points
Please please please weigh your arguments.
Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.
please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time
Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is email@example.com
I am ok with about everything you want to run. I default to stock issues unless you tell me otherwise. I hate T, I will vote on it only if they are legitimately not topical. I love debate theory, I think it makes for interesting debates. I like clash, good Disads. I have a tendency to not like Nuke war impacts just because the likelihood is so low. However, I have voted for plenty of Nuke war stuff. I am fine with Ks but explain them well. Like I have heard all of the common Ks and weird ones as well, but a well explained and detailed debate with the K will make it clear for my ballot and make it that much more likely to vote for it.
I am okay with just about everything. If you are going true LD with philosophy. Stick with the philosophy aspects and structure your debates around that idea. If you are playing to a policy style LD round keep it structured like policy. Now, I hate one thing and I won't vote on it 99% of the time. That is 1AC under views that go into 1AR is timescewed. I agree that you have a time disadvantage but use the AC to further education. Stop using it to complain that you have a right to auto win because you are AFF. I want to hear about the topic not about that LD is unfair to AFF because AFF wins just as much as NEG.
PF- I am fine with everything. Make sure to give me a weighing system. Otherwise I am fine with everything. I prefer that PF stays PF and that I don't hear a policy debate in PF.
ALL Debate- Speed
I am fine with speed. However, I prefer that speed is agreed upon by both competitors. If I have a problem I will yell clear, or speed. Most time my problem with speed is clarity of the words. Not the actual speed. I have heard incredibly fast debaters that are clear and I have no problem. However, when I am not hearing syllables because you can't maintain the speed. It is a problem.
ALL DEBATE- Structure
I like structure. Organization is key. Contention 1... Adv 2... Inherency... so on. Guide me though so I don't get confused where you are at.
All DEBATE Speaker points
I hate Speaker points because they are inherently unfair. Since I have to use them expect 27.5 to be the average speaks. Clean rounds 30. Bad rounds 25. Rudeness 20-24.9
I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 12 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.
I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.
I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.
I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019, now I teach/coach debate (policy and congress) at Success Academy Midtown West and Harlem West.
Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you.
I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.
I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.
I am not as familiar with the post-modern literature - so just make sure you are clearly explaining the alternative. Most of the K literature I know well is race and gender based.
Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.
PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.
J.D. 2013, University of Wyoming College of Law
Former Director of Debate, University of Wyoming, 1999-2010
NEW FOR 2017-18: PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE CLARIFIED MY JUDGING TENDENCIES REGARDING MY "STATEMENT OF ADVOCACY" THEORETICAL PREFERENCES BELOW.
I coached college debate for 15 years, judging probably around a thousand intercollegiate policy debates. Since then, I have judged college and high school policy debates intermittently, while working as a legal advocate for nonprofits dedicated to sustainable farming, economic policy reform, and domestic violence victims' services, and a freelance writer on those same issues.
Do whatever you do best, don't be afraid to try new things, and have fun. Specifics are below.
1. What arguments should or shouldn't we run?
I have judged all kinds of debates in all kinds of frameworks and voted for all kinds of arguments. I've voted for and against my own political and philosophical beliefs.
My general assumptions are: Policy, critical/pedagogical, and procedural debate are of roughly equal value. I am not the state. Life is good, the topic is good, topic research is good. Debate should be challenging but fair.
I don’t like to read a huge amount of evidence after debates, so the more you tell me during the debate, the less chance I’ll reconstruct arguments afterward in ways you might neither predict nor agree with.
I can't be "objective" or neutral about intentionally hostile and exclusionary speech acts (classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism etc.) and will, at a minimum, substantially lower speaker points in response to such acts.
2. What style and rates of delivery should we aim for?
Debate in the style and at the speed you're comfortable with. Please speak VERY CLEARLY and enunciate more than you would during a normal conversation. Please watch me occasionally to see if I'm getting it all down. I may sometimes ask for clarity.
All debate is performative and policy debate is a kind of weird political theater. The rapid delivery and esoteric weirdness of policy debate was one of the things that drew me in as a high school freshman and that strange delight has never gone away. But I've enjoyed other stylistic approaches.
Whatever else you do: Tell me what to write down about particular arguments and evidence.
3. How about speaker points?
I examine the skills, aesthetics, ethos, and knowledge-of-evidence displayed in both speeches and cross-x and currently use the following scale to assign points:
- 29.6 or above: You've helped define my conception of excellence in academic debate. I think you belong among the top 5 speakers at the tournament, you've left a lasting positive impression on me, I would teach debaters to speak using the entirety of your speaking as a model.
- 29.1-29.5: Top 10 speaker quality, there's something compelling and really aesthetically pleasing about the way you speak. I would use many attributes of your technique and style as models to teach debate. Extra clarity will get you here from the high 28s all else being equal, and I probably would never have to say "clearer" to a debater getting over a 29.
- 28.7 to 29: Compelling speaking, characteristic of teams you assume will be in doubles, octos or occasionally quarters. Clarity will get you here from the 28-28.5 range all else being equal. I would expect that the upper half of the 78-team NDT field would hardly ever drop below these points and would typically go higher.
- 28.4-28.6: Speaking skills associated with "bubble" teams, maybe good debating but with some clarity problems, technically proficient but not enough evidence-based analysis or comparisons, or not rhetorically compelling.
- 28.2 to 28.3: You did a roughly equal number of things well and not well.
- 28 to 28.1: Technically competent on the basics, but much room for improvement (or, aesthetically compelling but some gaps in technical application).
- Below 28: You need improvement to display the skills and stylistic attributes characteristic of open division NDT/CEDA debate.
4. What theoretical defaults should we be aware of?
I enjoy good theory and procedural debates. I have them out in the real world all the time. In competitive debate, I prefer competing interpretations and tend to believe conditionality is good. You might convince me otherwise.
T and other procedurals aren't "genocide," but the political and social implications of particular interpretations may be reasons to prefer or reject those interpretations.
I won't kick a counterplan for you to test the status quo: if you don't want to be committed to it in the 2NR, say so when you kick it. Counterplans or alternatives with solvency advocates can often tie-break close theory arguments or even get me to overcome a theoretical discomfort.
Aff, you needn’t necessarily have a plan (although your opponents might convince me otherwise) but you need a clear statement of advocacy.* Neg, your advocacy must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy.
*Further clarification about "statement of advocacy": I have found myself having trouble voting for advocacy statements that do not clearly delineate WHAT ENTITY SHOULD DO WHAT SPECIFIC THING. I don't know who "we" is, I don't necessarily know what it means to contemplate, adapt or embrace a paradigm, or what agents are implicated in the passive voice. The further your advocacy moves from a specific agent taking a specific action, the greater the risk my decision will not reflect your understanding of what you are advocating.
*Further clarification for "localized" or "micropolitical" advocacy: Substantively speaking, without very explicit arguments and evidentiary support from the advocating team, I will have trouble calculating the impact of acts of extremely localized advocacy. I am not against having debates about this kind of advocacy--I do it for a living, and in many contexts feel that local politics are much more effective and authentic than national or international politics. But my "policy debate" mind does not know how to weigh it without being told how, and I may end up defaulting to my own experiences working with local movements, nonprofits, campaigns etc. You may be safer advocating more traditional macropolitical actors and actions. But on the other hand, you may achieve great success with me by not playing it safe. Evidence and explanation are probably the telling criteria here.
5. What preferences about in-round technology should we be aware of?
Prep time ends once the email is sent. All tech should be set up pre-round; remediation of tech comes out of your prep. File transfer time is grace time, but don't steal prep or I'll steal your speaker points.
6. What ethical views of debate should we be aware of?
I feel very sensitive to how participants treat one another. I know how intense some debates can get, particularly when they touch on political and ethical questions that are meaningful to us. I have a Habermasian view of the pre-debate ethical commitment we make by simply choosing to participate and enter the tournament: We've agreed that we will compete against one another and that we MUST compete, MUST listen to each other's speeches, and somebody (mutually preferred) MUST judge the debate. That means we are cooperating competitively.
Everybody works very hard in debate and even the most unpleasant person in the activity is probably cooler than the boss you'll have in five years, many of your professors, or that mean dude who lives across the street from you. So try to cut each other --and me-- some slack.
Please ask pre-round or via email if you have any specific questions that aren't addressed in the above.
I debated policy in high school in Michigan (East Kentwood High School class of 2000). I also debated parliamentary style debate throughout college. I have stuck around in the judging pool for CX, LD, and PF since then at tournaments in Utah, Illinois, and Texas.
I try to be open in my judging philosophy. I will sit in any box that you persuasively put me in and will vote on any position, regardless of what I believe in real life. I do put a lot of stock in debaters weighing issues in the round and arguing, rather than merely asserting how and why I should vote. I reserve the right to vote on my own biases or gut feeling if you don't adequately weigh your impacts for me, however. I want the debaters to make my job easy by telling me why they've won.
That said, I believe that debate should at least tangentially be about the topic and the resolution. I am skeptical of cases which are clearly run on both the Aff and the Neg and which have nothing to do with the resolution. I will listen to and vote on any position which is well-argued, but I find certain forms of argumentation inherently less persuasive. If your case doesn't primarily support or negate the resolution you should probably strike me.
*****IF MY CAMERA IS NOT ON I AM NOT THERE******
I have a philosophy degree from Loyola and last debated for GSU (2n). I have a background in coaching, judging, and debating LD, PF, and Policy and I have been working at camps for 6 years (GDS, UNT, Hdc, and Snfi). Currently coaching for CKM. I will listen to most arguments as long as I do not find them offensive. I prefer clarity over speed- that being said I am perfectly fine with speed. If I have to call clear more than three times I will stop flowing. I will listen to pretty much any arg pending heinous claims. However, I typically only like to vote on theory arguments in which the violation can actually be resolved by the ballot. Can go either way on tricks, but I don't hate creative attempts at securing the ballot. Please for the love of everything... do not run a tva arg in front of me because we are both gonna be upset. My threshold for granting the tva is incredibly high and this is probably the only argument I really dont love hearing. It is unlikely I will vote on T. Definitely K leaning in terms of what I am most familiar with.
My connection is not the best- please include your analytics in your speech doc and make my life a lot easier. Reduce your speed by 10-15%.
My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org
B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law
Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010
Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events
Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:
I will judge the flow
Weigh your impacts at the end
Don't be mean at all
Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.
I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.
I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.
I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.
I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.
I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name @gmail.com) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.
LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.
Sorry this is blank, I haven't gotten around to this. But I am pretty traditional.
My background is in CX and LD, and I use a similar lens to weigh arguments in PF. In my mind "Framework" is similar to how it is used in LD. Without clear frameworks in PF, I usually will default on a Util standard, however, I am open to other "role of the ballot" argumentation. I'm a flow judge that is looking for big picture impact narrative. If you're trying to weigh impacts, tell me the story as to why your impact is more important. I will not check cards after the round, so be sure you're not strictly relying your entire argument on a piece of evidence.
I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate.
Traditionalist. Will vote on Progressive/kritiques arguments 7/10 times if there is a clear link to the Aff, but will only vote off topicality 2/10 times. Speed is not an factor. I need weighing mechanisms. I will not extend arguments that I don't understand.
I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.
I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.