2021 — NSDA Campus, US
PFD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
New cosponsor of Elkins High School debate team.
Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 on local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. As a college freshman I coached and judged extensively last season. I'm a second year out now. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer.
-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.
-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.
-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).
-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.
-Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.
-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will default con, but before that I will try to find some miniscule piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).
-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!
-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time
-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.
-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.
Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)
-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!
-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.
-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!
-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).
-Quality of responses>Quantity of response
Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:
-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.
-2 exceptions tho:
A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.
B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")
-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.
-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence
-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.
-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.
-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.
These are the scenarios I call for evidence:
A) A debater tells me to in the round
B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true
C) It is important for my decision
-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.
Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!
Add me to the ev share doc: email@example.com (do not use an email chain it's tedious)
- I debated PF for three years at Pine View School and was ranked 193 out of 2889 on the nat circuit (lol). I currently major in Electrical Engineering at the University of Florida. I qualed for nats every year I competed, but that isn't saying much. I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow if you want me to vote for you.
- Truth > tech, the point of debate is trying to convince someone; you have a higher burden of proof the longer the link chain and thus a higher threshold for my vote. I will still evaluate complex arguments obv
- Tabula rasa, don't expect me to know topic-specific terminology especially if it's the first round of the tourney
- Warrants and impacts need to be extended for an argument to be voted off of
- Don’t just read author names and expect me to remember what they say, contextualize each piece of evidence as the round goes on
- The earlier you start the better (rebuttal is great)
- If you weigh in summary (which you should) final focus should mirror the mechanisms used
- good teams always craft a narrative
- Include author name and year published if you want me to evaluate it (postdating is good).
- I will call for evidence if it's contested and key to my decision.
- Tell me if you want me to read a card, but don’t start showing me random ones to try and argue the round after is over.
- My threshold for dropping teams for misconstruing evidence is very low, BUT you need to run T saying why it makes the round unfair if you want it as a voter (this includes the interpretation, the violation, standards, and the voter(s)).
- prep stealing is bad but again I won’t vote off an unfairness claim unless a full theory arg is fleshed out by the opponents.
- if you can’t pull up a piece of evidence within a minute, I’m dropping the ev off the flow.
- if you don’t cut cards shame on you.
- 300 wpm is probably my higher comfortability range, anything greater and you risk cards not getting on the flow.
- If you can’t speak fast, don’t.
- I am comfortable evaluating theory and have taken philo coursework. Understand that prog arguments often don't fit into the PF speech timing and I will frown on you if you do try it against an opponent who isn't comfortable
- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory and I have a high threshold for disclosure theory (often teams will just use it as a cheap way to the ballot)
- Don’t just run T as an easy way to pick up against inexperienced teams, ask your opponents if they’re comfortable arguing it (if they aren’t and you go ahead and do I’ll be sad).
- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine
- Preflow before the round
Speaker Points Scale
30 - you're one of if not the best debater I have seen.
29 - 29.9 - You're one of the best debaters at the tournament
28 - 28.9 - You're good, you’ll probably break (hopefully).
27 - 27.9 - You're an okay debater, you need some work, you didn't drop anything major.
26 - 26.9 - You dropped at least one or more important arguments that lost you the round.
25 - 25.9 – You did something very wrong.
At the end of the day, debate is an educational event. If you’re not having fun, there’s no reason to be doing it. Above all, try your best, and be civil.
Coppell '21 | UT Dallas '25 | He/Him
Conflicts: Coppell (Former Debater: 2018-2021), Quarry Lane (Public Forum Coach: 2021-)
- **HIGHLY IMPORTANT** - Read the arguments you want and debate in your own style. The activity is supposed to be enjoyable, not one where you can't debate a certain way in front of a certain person. The more creative and fun you are in round, the higher likelihood you get higher speaks and everyone enjoys the round. My paradigm sets guidelines for the way I see rounds but by no means should hinder you from reading what you actually want to.
- Debate should be an educational and safe space - No violence of any kind towards anyone in the round will be tolerated and the round will be stopped if deemed unsafe for an individual in it.
- I'll try my best to adapt to you - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
- Cameras on at all times.
- Establish a method of evidence sharing before the round starts.
- If you get called out for stealing prep and you clearly are, speaks will be low. To avoid this - stay unmuted when a team is sending evidence over.
Public Forum Basics
- I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
- Extend the arguments themselves - the names of each author aren't required
- To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
- Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count, and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives either
- Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense it's conceded, and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
- Link turns need uniqueness responses to make them into a link turn and access the impact of the contention, otherwise it's just another contention with no impact
- Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter
- Dumping DA's in second rebuttal is can be made into a voting issue, but I don't have a predisposition on this issue
PF Summary/Final Focus
- Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - sticky defense doesn't exist
- Extend and weigh any argument you go for
- Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
- Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
- Any shell in a Varsity division is fair game - that being said, the more frivolous the argument, the lower the threshold for responses. Below are my preferences on common shells ran in PF.
- Theory about non-evidentiary ethics - things such as misgendering, violence, content warnings, etc. are good to read with a higher chance I vote off of the first 2 if there is clear abuse.
- Theory about evidence-related practices - paraphrasing, disclosure, etc. are fair game - I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but will not hack for these arguments in any way.
- Theory that has nothing to do with content in the round - take a guess
- Do a few things in ANY theory debate to increase your chances of winning - a) clearly extend EVERY part of the shell: this means the actual interp, not the spirit of it, and clear standards, voters, and paradigm issues, b) engage with the CI and do weighing - explain why your CI about full-text disclosure betters the activity in some way related to a standard you read compared to your opponents interp about open sourcing, c) never make arguments about inaccessibility of or against the reading of theory - if there's one thing I just won't believe here, it's that theory isn't accessible to smaller schools or newer debaters
Other Progressive Arguments
- Any argument, as long as it is warranted and impacted out is fair game - limit jargon on uncommon arguments or kritik's
- Layer arguments for me - there isn't a set in stone way to evaluate multiple types of progressive arguments in a round and they are up for interpretation here
- Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
- If you take more than 2 minutes to find a piece of evidence, speaks will be low.
- Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss
- I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
- If a team can win by reading cut cards only, you're guaranteed a 29 minimum
*my email is firstname.lastname@example.org*
LD- I'm fine with speed, as long as you aren't spitting across the room. I'm fine with progressive args, run whatever you want but everything needs to be extended through your 2 rebuttals for me to use it as a weighing mechanism. (If you are a non-traditional LD'er ... refer to my policy paradigm for more potential tips)
PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend all cards you intend on using through round through to summary (no sticky defense), line by line rebuttal, if you don't address a turn made on case I will consider it a drop, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh in EVERY SPEECH.
Policy: I am a tab judge
Here are some of my personal preferences: Don't go for too much. I'd like if you collapsed down to one position in your 2NR. Never finish a speech early, use that time to clarify arguments or bring down your opponents. I tend to be partial to K as long as it is very well done (it's fun..ner?). I need clear impact and link stories, the flow should be immaculate, and you should be able to signpost well enough for me to easily vote without rummaging through my sheets. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit. Two most important things in the round: IMPACT CALC & SPLIT THE BLOCK.
GENERAL: don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponents, it doesn't make you look cool. I WILL dock points for any mean or snide behavior, as well as asking circular questions in cross that don't allow your opponent to generate an answer. If your opponent is noticeably less experienced then you, do NOT take that as an opportunity to patronize them.
8 years of experience judging various forms of debate and speech events on local/state/national levels. Currently the coach at St. John's Upper School.
Consider me a tab judge for events: no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round.
I will entertain and vote on all arguments.
Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.
Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.
Ask before round any further questions you might have.
Assistant Debate Coach for Dulles HS.
Please introduce yourself with your preferred pronouns.
I am new to debate so I cannot judge spreading. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.
I want to see defense, impacts, and clear links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence. I will vote on pace, understanding, and explanation.
If you have specific questions, let me know!
Good luck and have fun.
- 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 (But my biggest accomplishment was by far learning all three countries that make up the baltics lmao)
- Currently a GSA at Liberty University
- Yes, put me on the email chain —— email@example.com
Disclaimer ---- It’s my first year out from debating so tbh I am still learning so do with that what you will
Just a heads up: I know alot of stuff about different things but I don't know everything so you should assume that I am not well versed in your args don't assume that I know what your talking about but also dont talk to me like im an idiot I'm smart just don't know every k/ arg out there
- 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 in online
- Try and organize your docs I can’t stand unorganized docs
- 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 .4
- Probably better for critical args but I also know my way around a policy round
(On this 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.)
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? ---- Every moment of the debate I am actively thinking about my decision and what im gonna say in the rfd... wont lie I probably have an idea who I am voting for before the debate is over.... all this means is during cx i pay very close attention its where I get clarification on things I don't understand and I am flagging key args early on in the debate on my flow
- Just an FYI when asking questions about my decision I will defend my decision, I will answer question I will do my best to give you advice for future debate but I wont argue with you on my decision lmao you wont change my mind I assure you of this but feel free to ask clarification questions and what not
- And lastly judge instruction in the 2AR and 2NR is like super important to me --- I see it as you just gave me a bunch of information and arguments now tell me what to do with it: What should I prioritize? What do your args mean in the context of this debate? Why the aff or neg's understanding is incorrect? and ect. --- The chances of you getting my ballot without judge instruction in the final speeches is so little because if you leave me to sort through all the arguments and information with no direction you cant get mad at me if I make a decision you dont agree with
---- You can stop reading here but if you want more insight on the wonderful world of Morgan pls continue -----
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
[Background] I am currently at UT Austin majoring in Finance & History. I also debate for the University and work as an Assistant PF Coach at Seven Lakes. Previously, I debated at Vista Ridge in PF reaching State & TOC. Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Vista Ridge (TX), Interlake (WA). Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
[Evidence] Evidence ethics can make or break a round. I expect properly cut cards that can be produced in a timely manner at your opponent’s request. If you take more than 1 minute locating “evidence” I will run your prep time. I do not expect disclosure full-text or otherwise and I am also okay with paraphrasing, though I do not prefer this. I am open to evaluating and voting off disclosure & paraphrasing theory.
[Argumentation] This is really up to you; you’re debating not me. However, I do prefer weighing or framing coming out of the 1st rebuttal. 2nd rebuttals are expected to frontline AND collapse. I prefer line-by-line summaries and I don’t have a preference for how you treat final focus. Please make your weighing comparative. Repeating you impact and tagging “scope” and/or “magnitude” after it is not weighing, it’s just proving to me you know how to memorize a number.
[Speed/Speaks] I am okay with speed so long as you don’t sound like “hghghhdhhhss.” Speaker points generally range from 28-29.5. This is largely based off my subjective view of how articulate and convincing you sound as a debater. Although I am not extremely invested in crossfire this will affect your speaks. Please avoid being an unnecessary prick in cross unless it is tied to making a tasteful joke. Feel free to cut GCX for +90s of prep to both sides.
Feel free to ask questions after the round, I am here to help you learn and improve.
Other paradigms I agree with: Jack Hayes, Jonathan Daugherty, Max Fuller, & Nahom Tulu.
Speak slow and clear. Be respectful to your opponents.
i'm basically like a flay judge, tell me what to vote for and why.
Please treat me like a lay judge. Go slow and keep it simple. :)
Don't get super technical because i don't believe that's the way pf should have to be
If a round gets muddled, i'll go for the path of least resistance.
3 min summaries mean please collapse and weigh
i dont like it when teams waste 20 extra mins in round not even looking at cards but pulling them up, so if u have to spend more than two mins trying to find called cards itll start eating into your prep - have your cards prepared
I expect to see plenty of clash. The event is called congressional DEBATE! Utilize questioning period effectively, and ask targeted questions. Analysis is the #1 priority
I competed for A&M Consolidated for 4 years in pf, extemp, and policy. I now attend UT.
Contact Info (for email chains or questions): email@example.com
Debate should be an educational and safe space - No violence of any kind towards anyone in the round will be tolerated and the round will be stopped if deemed unsafe for an individual in it.
I'll try my best to adapt to you - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
I am constantly frustrated by how long evidence exchange takes -- **send speech docs for a boost in speaks**
My speaks usually range around 28.5. If you get 29.5+, I was very very impressed.
- I'm completely okay with a quick speed but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- a bunch of one-liners) because you don't collapse, I will probably end up missing something.
Public Forum Basics
I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
Extend the arguments themselves - the names of each author aren't required
To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives either
Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense it's conceded, and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter
Dumping DA's in second rebuttal is can be made into a voting issue, but I don't have a predisposition on this issue
PF Summary/Final Focus
Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - sticky defense doesn't exist
Extend and weigh any argument you go for
Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although not required).
Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
Other non-standard arguments in PF
I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read neolib, imp, bioptx and cap.
- Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.
Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
Post-round, but I won't change my decision - this should be a means to learn what you could've improved on instead of trying to get me to change my ballot, which isn't possible
Novices (Any Event)
Collapse. Most rounds are lost by going for too much and not explaining the most important arguments enough. Choose only a few (one is fine of course) arguments to have in your last speech and explain it/do impact calculus and compare it to your opponent’s argument.
Clarity. Go at a pace you feel comfortable at, there isn’t always a need to match your opponent’s speed and make sure that speed doesn’t sacrifice the clarity of your arguments. This also relates to the order of your speeches: Be clear when responding to different arguments and label them as such (i.e. “Moving on to their argument about Military Spending”). This makes it much easier to follow along and catch everything.
Comparison. A bit repetitive but important to understand: comparing (doing impact calculus) is the most important way to win a round. Usually both teams are winning some argument on their side, and the way to ensure your argument comes above theirs is to give reason as to why it does
Shoutout to my friend Shabbir for letting me use his formatting
bellaire '21, ut bhp '25
1-6 at 2021 gTOC
put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (yes it says it's Wenhui Ge)
i like to consider myself a traditional PF flow judge (tech > truth) but if i'm on a panel don't adapt to me; i.e. if it's me and 2 lays debate lay but obviously make coherent arguments, if it's 2 progressive judges and me then i'll try my best to keep up if you want to read anything wack
nothing sexist/homophobic/racist or else
generally i give high speaks, i start from 29 and hover around there
speed is like 250 wpm tops but if it's something unique then PLEASE slow down otherwise i might just not understand and my threshold for responses will be lower
trad is good, theory is iffy and anything beyond that is at your own risk
*NO DISCLOSURE THEORY UNLESS BOTH TEAMS ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF DISCLOSING*
COMPARATIVE weighing is the difference between me being interventionist and me being not interventionist
defense is NOT sticky --> bring it up in every speech
prob won't listen to cross
i will not look at evidence unless otherwise told to in the round; if no one tells me to look at evidence then i will use my own judgement to determine who presented the evidence better
i presume first speaking team unless otherwise told
don't do anything stupid, if you're going fast send a doc
if you link dump in case my threshold for responses will be very, very low (thanks shabbir)
"x% increase/decrease in GDP" is not good enough for a terminalized impact sorry
QUALITY OF RESPONSES > QUANTITY OF RESPONSES
turns/defense implications should probably be given AS IT IS READ i dont want a blippy justification and then you spending a minute on it in your next speech
first rebuttal can just dump but if you do please be clear and probably send a doc
second rebuttal should frontline EVERYTHING (defense and offense)
no offensive overviews in second rebuttal
weighing should start here but if it doesn't it's OK
please crystallize the round --> don't try to go for everything
defense is NOT sticky so please re-extend it; this is to make sure that it does not just disappear off my flow
new weighing in second summary is okay i guess
please extend what ur going for
should be consistent with summary speech
also crystallize the round
a lot of the times the round is already over by this point, but a convincing ff may cause me to re-evaluate the round
tldr: traditional pf judge with moderate speed and relative understanding of argument interactions but with no topic knowledge
Background: I retired from Coppell High School a few years ago where I taught Public Forum, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. I am assisting Coppell at the present time.
Judging Philosophy: While I don't think anyone can be truly tabula rasa, I try to ignore my bias as much as possible. I will listen to any argument you want to make as long as you have good evidence, and qualified sources. I expect weighing of impacts and any other reason why your argument is better than your opponents. Your strategy is your own business but if you expect me to vote for you I have to have strong impacts and comparisons to your opponents arguments that make sense.
Style: I have to hear you to flow your arguments. Because of this virtual world we are forced to live in you have to be clear and make sure you are being heard. I will say "clear" once. I prefer moderate to a little faster speed. Again, remember you are debating via computer.
I have judged Public Forum a lot this year.
i competed for 4 years in pf (Westwood)
i did some stuff
Im down for whatever in round
theory rounds fun
please put me on the chain email@example.com
I am a parent judge with some experience.
Please speak slowly and clearly.
Please respect other speakers during crossfire and do not interrupt opponents.
Your case is the most important part of the round.
Please weigh in the round and compare your arguments.
Add me to the evidence chain at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please put useful info about the round in the subject of the email. I self-identify as a progressive tabula rasa flow judge, although I am now so old, I am a parent as well.
TLDR: Tech > Truth, Line-by-Line good, Signposting good, writing my ballot good, progressive good.
Flashing docs: I expect you to know how to flash or email docs in a timely fashion. Lack of crispness in this exercise reflects poorly on you. ADDENDUM: In this new Zoom era, please have a link to your case and every card in your case ready to get posted. Let's not spend a lot of time screwing around swapping evidence.
Tech > Truth. Underdeveloped or ridiculous arguments are hard to vote on (low bar for !truth), but I try to flow and vote on things said in the round. I have built up some dispositional bias that leads me to believe that environmental destruction, nuclear war, racism, sexism, and homophobia are all bad. Death is bad.
Speed hasn’t been a problem even though I am old now. I will clear you if I feel the need. I like a speech doc as much as anybody, but I feel like it is symptomatic of intellectual laziness on my part or poor judge adaptation on your part if I rely on it. I should be able to understand and flow what you are saying, right? But I do like to spell an author's name correctly when flowing citations.
Theory and T are fine. I am a bit out of touch with modern CP theory, so make sure you are clear (aff and neg) on your advocacy so I can follow. I am familiar-ish with K. I am not up to speed on my Kant or Heidegger or whatever. You will need to make sure your argument is extremely clear. Frivolous theory or tricks seem easy to vote against, but you are welcome to try your luck.
I sometimes judge Novice and JV rounds. If I had to identify the thing I have enjoyed the least in these rounds, it would be the technical lack of proficiency most commonly expressed through the cliche “two ships passing in the night”. Good flowing leads to good line-by-line. Good line-by-line leads to a good story. Write my ballot for me. If any of this is unclear, make sure you ask before the round.
If this is a novice round or JV, if you show me a good flow after the round, I will bump your speaks. Numbering arguments is a best practice I encourage.
A common pre-round question is how I feel about tag-team CX. If your partner is about to give away the farm, by all means jump in. If you have a question prior to your speech that you just really need to ask, jump in. Otherwise, why not just let the appropriate people interact in the usual way? Do you enjoy CX that much? Also, I'm probably not listening.
This is an educational activity and I don't like a hostile environment.
Everything above still applies. If it is in Final Focus, it was in summary, right? People ask me if defense is sticky and my response is that if you want to do stuff in the Final Focus, it should be in summary, but you can extend dropped arguments very, very quickly. I don't need you to do line-by-line, card-by-card extension in summary. You can tell the story in final focus.
I expect, starting in rebuttals, people to answer arguments in prior speeches. I know this makes the 2nd Rebuttal hard, but I believe in you.
I see people saying they will bump speaks if you read cards instead of paraphrasing. I am on the train: If you show me before the round that you are reading carded constructives, I will bump your speaks. Paraphrasing may have started as an attempt to increase persuasion, but I feel like it devolves to blippy args. I am considering transitioning to "paraphrase = lower speaks". Would love to discuss.
I find that with the volume of paraphrasing, people can blur through tags and authors. Please be articulate on the tag and author so I know what you want me to flow. In policy, I feel like I have the time they spend reading the card to write down the tag and author and the tag/citation/card model makes it easy to differentiate between tags and cards. PF seems to be somewhat sub-optimized for flowing by blurring the tag and content via paraphrase. Crazy! I assume you want me to flow a tag and author if you go to the trouble to say something, but I probably can't write as fast as you read. Help me help you. After judging several rounds at a recent tournament where I had a problem, let me say this: If your 1st constructive is paraphrased and has more than 20 citations, you are probably over paraphrasing and/or going too fast. I write down your citations. I have seen multiple instances where cases or arguments are so heavily paraphrased that there are two or more citations in a single sentence. I will not be able to write down your argument if you are expecting me to write down two arguments and two citations in a single sentence. And it is probably abusive to the other team. This is a real opinion. If you think this is an unfair standard, I would love to discuss.
Progressive PF is fine.
And I just want to say, for whoever happens to be reading this: It's strange to me that a judge would say that they don't like theory or progressive arguments. I understand if you say you have a bias against tricks, but if people can't feel comfortable making an argument about abuse in round in front of you, that opens the door for off-topic advocacy. Why would we want that? Policy debaters didn't have theory day one, theory evolved to check abuse. I get that people may not have experience with theory, but close-mindedness and a pre-conceived idea of what is acceptable seems super meh and interventionist. Just putting it out there as a check against all the judges that try to actively discourage theory, which I dislike. Happy to advocate for theory before or after round if people want to shoot the breeze.
I have more opinions, just ask.
My pronouns are she/her.
I did PF at Westlake and I currently coach there.
You only need to extend defense in first summary if it has been frontlined otherwise, it sticks.
I think 2nd rebuttal needs to at least frontline offense and preferably defense as well. I won't automatically down you if you don't do this but I prefer it and I think it's more strategic.
If you want to concede a de-link to kick out of a turn you can't just say that phrase, you need to explain why the particular arguments allow you to do that. If you only say "we concede the de-link so we kick out of the turn" and move on and your opponent extends the turn, I will grant them the turn.
I will vote on the least mitigated link chain leading to the most weighed impact. I will vote for a team with a fleshed-out link chain and a poorly extended impact over a team that does the opposite.
I give speaks mainly based on presentation or if I think a team should be in out rounds. However, if you want a 30 from me focus on speaking clearly and having good round etiquette.
I'll evaluate any arguments like theory/Ks but I don't have pervasive knowledge of how they traditionally function in rounds so make sure everything is explained thoroughly.
I'm good with speed to an extent, anything getting close to spreading I probably can't follow.
The most important thing in debate is weighing! If you don't weigh, I am forced to decide what I think is the most important argument.
If you want more specifics, feel free to ask me questions!
December 2021 update: i know my paradigm is long but good lord please at least read the prefs guide
I am old and don't know anything and my RFDs are bloated and terrible strike me
Current affiliation: head debate coach at LC Anderson in Austin, TX
Email chain email@example.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them
Quick guide to prefs
1-off ap, setcol, latinx, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1
deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 1-2
kant without tricks: 2
most k/idpol/: 3
performance/non-Baudrillard pomo: 3-4
Baudrillard/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 4
friv theory/skep/cpess: strike
tricks/abusive strats/death good: strike no matter what I will vote you down
Share ALL evidence before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem.
Unconventional arguments: fine, but I've never heard a coherent or developed K in PF
Framing/weighing mechanism: please
Evidence sharing/disclosure: necessary
Theory: Yes but don't read it if you don't know how
Problematic PF broness: ew
Weighing: the more the better; meta-weighing is good
Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better.
Note on ableism: It is somewhat difficult and potentially upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or neurodivergent subject. I will never punish debaters for pursuing arguments that explore their own agency and relation to societal structures. Just be mindful that it's very hard for me to hear.
Afropessimism: If you don't identify as Black, please respect the wishes of many of your peers in the community and don't read afropessimism in front of me. This is not a pronouncement that I agree or disagree with any particular person's position on whether this practice should be allowed. But the bottom line is, if people in our community who we value and respect articulate to us that they are hurt by this practice, it's on us not to do it or encourage it. This doesn't mean you can't argue against the theory or read other positions that deal with antiblackness or structural racism. I am specifically willing to listen to Wynter, racial capitalism, Afro-futurism, and racially-oriented semiotic arguments that are philosophically, structurally, and most importantly methodologically distinct from Wilderson, Warren, and Sexton et al. Note: I will have a *very* high threshold for dropping a debater as retroactive punishment for reading afropessimism in the past. This is an evolving norm, and we are all learning as we go. The exception is if you were called out on it before or made verifiable pronouncements indicating you stopping the practice but continued to do it afterward. If I'm at all unclear, I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess.
Post-rounding: If you or your coach are a person who post-rounds after losses, please assume in advance that I am an extreme lay judge and strike/block me forever. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. Please, I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't. I'm fine with you thinking my decision was incorrect; it probably was.
TLDR: I am what a lot of people would call a "flex judge." I don't default one way or another on most arguments. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in the 2AR. Don't insult my (admittedly limited) intelligence. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. Give content warnings. Tricks and excessive preempts/triggers make me so very unhappy, my attention deficit and cognitive impairments make it impossible for me to keep up with all of them, and just know if you're reading them you are being violent toward me (and probably the other debater). I'm not impressed with non-Black debaters being self-righteous about the race war. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. There's a lot of PF-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. Death is not good and I will vote you down for impact-turning nuclear war. Pronouns he/him/his.
I've judged national circuit-style LD the most, but I competed exclusively in policy debate and run a PF camp. Assume I'm fine to judge any of the 3 and that I'll adapt to you rather than the other way around. I'm super old, but I like to think I can still handle some or most high-level debate. PF: I expect ALL evidence read or especially paraphrased to be shared and accessible by both teams and the judge. This means case and rebuttal docs WITH ACTUAL CUT CARDS. Evidence is not a summary of evidence or link to an article, it's cut evidence in the context of an entire passage/paragraph of text that isn't deleted or obscured. If you don't share, don't be surprised if I drop you. I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence.
Despite how long my paradigm is, I don't think it's my job to tell debaters what to do; rather, it's the job of the debaters to tell me why to vote a certain way.
Debaters shouldn't lie or act like jerks. While I get that debate is ostensibly a competitive activity and can get very intense, this is supposed to be educational, good-spirited, and fun. Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. I don't like to intervene, but blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, and there's even a slight question as to whether it might be a trigger, please notify your opponent. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. I consider bullying nontechnical debaters or over-employing jargon against them a violation of the "shouldn't act like jerks" maxim. Stop yelling at each other.
Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.
Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for my sake and for your opponent's. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.
Speaks: You're probably not going to get a 30. I tend to start at 28 and work my way up or down. If you get a 26 or below, you likely did something bigoted/abusive. I usually range between 27.5 and the mid 29s. I'm a little more generous in PF and at locals. I will dock you hard if you make the space unsafe, particularly for women, gender/sexual minorities, disabled or differently abled debaters, religious minorities, and debaters of color. I'm not afraid to give good speaks if you're good, but yeah 29.8 is usually as high as I'll go
Speed: Any rate of delivery is fine, though I love and prioritize clarity. If you are not clear, I will say "clear" once. Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.
Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).
Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US affs in most topicality debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR.
Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy-oriented, phil, critical frameworks, performance, narratives but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I hate framing that is abusive for abuse's sake, like "the aff/neg must win every round." Examples of this are a prioris that say "Resolved" means the resolution has already been affirmed or "evaluate the round after the 1AC." I'm the worst person to pref if you are a tricks debater. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I don't enjoy permissibility triggers, but I understand them and will vote on them.
LARP: Great. Plans, counterplans, PICs, PIKs, disads, solvency dumps, whatever. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good. For UIL/traditional policy debaters - please read the entirety of the aff in the 1AC and please divide labor in the block. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me really highly, and sometimes don’t on the basis that I've coached good K debaters. I am most comfortable and conversant with policy arguments.
Condo: Fine. Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional advocacy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story.
Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. For sharing, I prefer email. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.
Sitting/Standing: Whatever. I have my own debaters stand if they can at in-person competitions because it helps with volume and clarity. But do your thing, it won't affect speaks. Maybe look at me every once in a while, your call. For online debate specifically I fully recognize and accept that most debaters are sitting and whatever.
Flex prep: Fine. More clarity is good.
Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race issues, or a man advocating feminism against a woman, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea. "Perf con good" arguments had better make a metric ton of sense.
I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.
I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing.
I don't vote against a "traditional" value debater because they're "less progressive" or "less cool" or whatever. Every person in our community has value. PUN INTENDED! That said, I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.
Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.
Policy: I was a 2A-1N in the 90s, and began my judging/coaching career strictly in policy debate. Most of this doc is LD-specific, because that's the pool to which I'll generally be assigned. Policy debaters, don’t worry. I’m not going to expect you to read weird phil or something. Still, most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker.
PF: If you're actually reading this, congratulations! Speed is fine. Framework is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Nontraditional PF arguments (theory, spec advocacies) are fine. I will listen to disclosure theory, though I am less likely to buy it if the offending case is straightforward/common. Offense is important. I'm surprised and impressed when PF debaters cut actual evidence rather than paraphrasing it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. If you try to read a policy/critical argument you don't understand, I will flame you in the oral, so be ready for that. For god's sake, do weighing. All that said, I love that the format is sometimes still accessible to actual regular people. I believe PF debaters should be adaptable, like all-weather shrubbery.
DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.
I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true.
If I call for evidence and you give me a link to an article, I will auto-dock speaks and flame you in the RFD.
More PF specifics:
Anything above regarding performative issues applies to PF, so please read carefully. I am primarily an LD judge on the national circuit and at Austin-area locals. Take from that what you will, and assume I am fine with either a more progressive or traditional style of PF debate. "It's not allowed in PF" is not a warranted argument. Line by line debate is important, and as it's what I am used to, I am not likely to vote on new arguments (or arguments that weren't gone for in Summary) made in Final Focus. This means sticky defense justifications are probably a no-no. Weighing offense is important. Framing should be established in constructive or at the very latest on the top of rebuttal. Don't call something terminal without a warrant. Don't call link defense a turn. Don't say you are "turning an impact" if you're not. An impact turn argues that the impact itself is good. If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: evidence standards in PF are possibly the biggest holding it back from being truly great. Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold - if you're shady and there's a shell or implication I am very inclined to vote on it. If you're running theory, don't run it wrong or I'll make it really obvious how little I care for your debating. Remember, I am an LD judge and hear theory shells in more than half of the rounds I watch.
Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.
Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.
Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.
NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.
THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.
For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.
TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.
KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.
Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.
EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.
Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.
STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.
Hey, my name is Wubet. I am a Senior who does pf debate. Please be respectful of each other. Speak clearly, remember to enunciate, and don't spread. If something important is mentioned in cross, bring it up in your speech so I can flow it. Most importantly, make sure to weigh!
New assistant debate coach this year--still learning the ropes of speech and debate in general and the judging for both.
I am primarily an AP English 3 teacher, and that informs my judging. Make your argument as if I am entirely unfamiliar with the topic.
I have only judged LD, PF and several speech formats at this time and am still learning the other debate types.
In judging, I look for:
-Logical consistency in your argument: your framework should carry through your arguments.
-LD - value/criterion/framework. I like to see the connections of how the framework influences your cases and argumentation.
-PF - I'm always looking for argumentation and clash.
-I value the quality of the argumentation over attempts to win points on technicalities.
-Speak at a normal conversational pace. Do not spread or rush your speaking--if I can't follow what you're saying, I can't fairly evaluate your argument, and this will work against you in terms of both speaker points and the overall quality of your argument.
You may find feedback from me in your online ballot after your rounds. As a general rule, I do not do orals.
I'm a grandparent judge, who has been privileged to judge a variety of events for more than two years of tournament competition. I've participated in both live and asynchronous rounds this year and find that most competitors have responded well to the NSDA portal.
On Judging Debate Events ...
With debate events, the side which does the best job of arguing its position and rebutting its opponent will generally emerge as the winner. Persuasive speaking is an important support to mounting an effective argument, but it is not a substitute for well-developed arguments. I expect both sides of a debate to make their points with logic and clarity as this judge, while an informed citizen, should not be assumed to have expertise in the resolution under consideration. Well reasoned arguments (Claim, Warrant, Impact), presented with conviction, will impress me.
I do not have a problem with aggressive questioning during cross-examination, so long as the questions are on point and not personal attacks. In team events, I expect and prefer to see a balanced participation, but specialization is fine and often necessary. The effective use of quality evidence in support of key points is important in making a case.
On Judging Speech Events ...
While the factors that I consider vary with the requirement of the particular event, I do expect the contestants to demonstrate a commitment to their presentation. Skilled contestants have a well designed structure to their work and flow from section to section in a logical fashion that is easy for the judge to follow. I appreciate a pause between opening and the main body of the presentation, as well as at the summation. I value presentations where the contestant has succeeded in matching voice, gestures, and tone to the text. I've yet to be disappointed by a tournament and have come away quite impressed by the talent and intelligence of today's high school students.
hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org facebook.com/nate.nyg
he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)
i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I'm currently a 2n at wake forest where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda. i did pf my freshman year, so i'm familiar, but don't assume i know every single thing about the activity and its conventions.
i'm willing to vote on anything and am purely tab with the caveat of intervening against oppressive argumentation. if you're reading theory or k's in pf, i guess i'd vote on it, but please make an effort to make your arguments accessible to your opponents -- pf has not entirely adapted to new norms and if you don't try to adapt your arguments to pf and instead just assume your opponents will know your exact format and everything i'll be annoyed and speaks will suffer. bad theory and k debates don't get my ballot, and frivolous theory in pf is probably the stupidest thing i can think of.
i think the way pf handles evidence is really silly -- i have no clue why people don't just send a doc with all the evidence in their case. for that matter, i also have no idea why people don't just send speech docs, but i understand that this is an activity with norms and i won't make you go against them. that being said, your speaks will be happier if you choose to engage in either of those practices.
hello friends! I debated for 4 years at Plano West, and now I'm the assistant coach at Jasper.
If you have any questions that weren't answered here, I'll be happy to clear them up before round.
1. the warranting of an argument must happen completely the first time you read the response and should ideally be implicated out fully (new warrants/implications from a new warrant will be disregarded, should have theory read against them, and will tank your speaks)
2. I'm a big fan of early weighing in PF. With that being said, if you're just gonna restate your impact and throw out a buzzword, you might as well not weigh at all (make your weighing comparative). I also don't evaluate new weighing in second final unless there is no weighing done in the round prior to that.
3. If you want to dump turns against your opponents, go for it (just make sure the responses are actually responsive because if either a. the response isn't originally responsive and gets turned into something responsive or b. the response gets extended as a blip until final focus, I will intervene to drop the response even if your opponents dropped it completely). I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to reading lots of responses against an argument, but a response must consist of a claim, a warrant, and an implication to how it affects the original argument. offensive overviews in rebuttal are kinda abusive imo, so while ill evaluate it like any other DA/Advantage in the round, I have a lower threshold for responses against the argument and encourage people to read theory against it.
4. With the new three minute summaries, the extension of an argument consists of a re-explanation of the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact (failure to extend any one of these in summary or final focus drops the argument from my flow). For specific card extensions, idrc if you extend the card name, but it would be preferred.
5. I've debated my fair share of theory rounds, so I think I feel comfortable evaluating a basic theory debate. Additionally, I have a low threshold for responses against "no RVIs" and friv theory. With that being said, while I will do my best to understand non-topical K positions, high theory, tricks, and counter-plans, I can't promise that you'll like my decision at the end of the round.
6. I debated at a fairly fast pace throughout high school, so speed is fine. if you're gonna be spreading, please use an email-chain. If you don't send a speech doc and you're going too fast for me, I will clear you once and proceed to put my pen down and stop flowing.
8. at a base level, i really enjoyed my time in the debate space. I know I'm one of the lucky ones who was surrounded by great friends and coaches that genuinely cared. My number one goal is always to make that space more accessible to others. For that reason, any exclusionary language or action will result in a loss and the lowest possible speaks tab will let me give you.
I'm a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't spread or read theory. Thank you. I know a little bit about public forum and this debate topic.
Hi, my name is Zefei and I'm a college student studying economics!
I am a lay judge, so please speak slowly and provide speech docs when needed.
Please include me in the email chain or google doc, my email is email@example.com.
If you need any accommodations during the round feel free to email me too.
Hello! I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.
I can't stand the K. Please don't run one.
Parli- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence.
LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.
I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.
To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.
The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.
Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.
I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two four year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.
If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.
PF/LD in HS, now a UT policy debater (2A/1N).
PSHS '20, UT '24
Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)
firstname.lastname@example.org (Email for email chain)
Judges who I largely agree with:
Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)
1 - LARP/theory
2 - K
3 - phil
4 - tricks
5 - K aff, performance
Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*
Presumption/Permissibility flows neg
Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework
Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.
*Check theory section if you do CX Debate
As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.
TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated policy style (CP, DA) and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.
- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof
- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting
- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal
- defense isn't sticky in summary
- summary and final should ideally mirror each other
- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round
LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. I think 2+ CPs are pushing it on condo in LD. I don't really have a predisposition to any DA so run them all. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.
Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on novices, people who clearly don't know what it is or people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*
T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.
Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 27. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).
Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.
K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.
K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.
Plano West Senior High School ’19; 4 years of PF, 4 FX/DX
I debated four years on the North Texas, Texas, and National circuits in PF and extemp. I did alright. If you want to email any speech docs/have questions about the round, here is my email (email@example.com).
My paradigm is kind of long but there is an abbreviated version below. I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:
I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted. Also weigh, I like that.
1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim
2) The 2nd rebuttal has to cover turns or I consider them dropped. On the flip side if turns are dropped, they act as terminal defense. Also in 2nd rebuttal don't read new offensive overviews it doesn't give the opponent's enough time to respond.
3) Defense is sticky even with a 3-minute summary. i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized if the warrant is read (read the full description below).
4) Crossfire is non-binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in the next speech to try and get out of a concession
5) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped
6) Don't use "risk of offense" unless absolutely necessary
7) Need parallelism in summary/final focus, offensive extensions must be in both speeches
8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument
9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round
10) No new args/weighing in second ff
11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it
12) No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in the first summary
13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals
14) Anything you want me to write on my ballot should be in summary and final focus. If your opponents drop an argument or don’t respond to sticky defense, you still have to extend it for me to evaluate it.
15) PF is a debate event, but part of it is speaking. speaks are given on how well you speak (more details below)
Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!
Whole paradigm below:
Preflowing - Preferably already done before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes, we are starting the round.
Coin Flip – Flip outside if you want or in front of me, either one is fine. Just make sure that both teams are in agreement
Sitting/Standing/etc. - If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. I do prefer however that during actual speeches you stand, it just looks more professional that way
Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD - post round discussion is good for the activity, ask away.
Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (firstname.lastname@example.org). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.
Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes, I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. Asking questions ensures that judges are held accountable and requires them to logical defend and stand by their decisions. I do ask that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.
O Postround me if you want to. I am happy to discuss the round with anyone who watched, regardless if you were competing.
O I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more beneficial than harmful to the debate space
Spectators - In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. In prelims, if both teams can agree to let a spectator watch then they are allowed in. That being said, be reasonable, I will intervene if I feel compelled. I would ask that if you are watching, watch the full round. Do not just flow constructives and leave.
- Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.
- I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. Be logical as to what needs to be carded.
- Well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk
- Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.
- Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.
- If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo.
- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.
- Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. If you say these things explain why the warrant in it matters and how it interacts with your opponent’s case.
- If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing > Triple Beam Balance.
- Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.
- I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.
- Highly would prefer line by line up until final focus, this should be big picture. This doesn’t mean ignore warrants, implicating impacts, and weighing. I will evaluate line by line final focuses however.
- If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my framework for evaluation. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Any time after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.
-I usually default CBA absent framing. Of course, if you present and warrant your own framework this doesn't really matter
- Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. It can even be done in the rebuttal if you feel it is helpful. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate, don’t go for everything.
- I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final which shouldn’t happen.
- Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.
- No new terminalization of impacts in final focus (i.e. do not switch from econ collapse leading to job loss to econ collapse leading to poverty)
- Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.
- THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact) This is especially true for case args or turns. On defense, the warrant and how it interacts/blocks your opponents arg is fine. A 3-minute summary increases my threshold for this extension.
- I advise that even though defense is sticky, extend critical defensive cards in summary and weigh them. I am more inclined to buy it.
- My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then, I need you to do some minimal warrant/impact extension for me to give you offense
-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....
-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization.
*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument
I don’t like these arguments and am inclined not to vote on them as they should not be very prominent in pf and should not be seen as free wins. I think that the discussions that are created through theory are good, but should be had outside the setting of round. That being said however, if there is a clear violation by your opponents, run theory and I will vote on it. Do not run disclosure theory, you will get dropped.
TLDR: My range is generally 27-30. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job. I give all 30s on bubble rounds, anyone with a good record should clear. Speaks should not be the difference in you breaking if you win the bubble round.
- I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times, we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. If you think an email chain would be helpful, start one and add me (email@example.com). Good job for reading this long you deserve a reward, creative contention names geet +.5 speaker points .
- General Penalties (This is just a condensed, but not all inclusive, list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):
1) Taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)
2) Taking too long pull up evidence
3) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)
4) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you
5) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears
6) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices
7) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.
8) Severe evidence misrepresentation (Trust me you probably won't want to see your speaks if you do this)
-Bonus speaks. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you
1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)
2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)
3) Any Marvel references in your speech (+.2 each time/ max of +1 per partner)
4) Bring a printed picture of the TMNT, Viswa Raj, Pranay Gundam, Noah Ogata, MK Rao (+.5 each picture/ max of +1.5 per partner)
5) +0.5 speaks: if you talk as slow as Druv Dhuper (+1 point if your efficiency is as good as Jerry Yang's)
6) +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)
- I will call for evidence if I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also call if I am just curious.
- I would suggest having cut cards for anything you read available.
- If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm calling for it and dropping it if misrepresented.
- Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.
- "Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In the case I call for evidence after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it", but it will be looked down upon.
o L/20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.
o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it is dropped
o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.
- I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.
-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.
- No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging but I will respect them.
Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of a couple people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:
Feel free to ask me any other questions before or after the round (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!
If you get me as a judge in these events, I AM SO SORRY. My best advice would be to treat the round like a pf one, as this is how I will be evaluating it. This means going a bit slower and keeping theoretical/progressive arguments to a minimum. I will however, evaluate these arguments to the best of my ability if they are presented to me. Again, very sorry.
IDK if anyone is actually going to be looking at this, but I will write one just in case. I am a very flow judge even in extemp. I believe that what you are saying matters more that how you say it. That being said, this is a speaking event and how you say things matters. (I say like 70% what you say, 30% how you say it). This means not just reading off a bunch of sources like an anchor, give me your analysis on the topic. That is what will boost your rank. In terms of speaking speak clear and confident. Also, I like humor, make me laugh. Any Marvel references are appreciated.
If you say anything super questionable or unreasonable, I will fact check it. If it turns out you were making things up, it will be reflected negatively on the ballot.
Also if the round is super late and you guys don't want to debate (i.e. not bubble round or higher bracket) we can settle the round with a game of smash or poker or smthg...if you guys are good with it.
Lastly, have fun!
Email chains are good. Include me email@example.com
Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)
*edited 2/11/2021 - I took out any objection to the 50 states CP.
I think debate operates in a unique place in the high school experience, where it serves as a crucible for the development of advocacy skills and critical engagement that is not replicated anywhere else. I love this activity and want each successive generation to be able to enjoy it. As such, be good to one another! Take care of our space and leave it better than the way you found it. Come back and give back if debate has given you a space to develop yourself.
These are some of my thoughts but I’m not dogmatic. Do what you do best.
1. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense
2. Tell me what you want me to vote on.
3. Compare evidence - this doesn’t happen enough and it’s usually what close debates depend on to resolve.
4. K aff’s - I default to believing that K aff's should still be affirmative arguments. I think switch-side debate is good and develops a portable skill that other activities do not. I think what you clash abilities is important. K aff's should forward counter-interpretations as needed. I am willing to vote on framework.
5. Counterplans are best when case-specific. PiCs are fine. The aff should have to defend their plan.
6. I prefer line-by-line debate more than long overviews. Too many rebuttals I’ve seen recently spend a ton of time explaining arguments in overviews that should just be done on the flow. Numbering arguments and following the order of your opponents is preferable or at least be explicit when re-grouping the flow.
7. I cannot flow a string of unending analytics with no time to type even if it's in perfect outline from in speech doc. Slow down just a bit, change your tone, and or pause for a moment when reading strings of long analytics.
8. I will be following along with the evidence read in the debate on my computer.
I have competed in or coached various debate formats for over 20 years. Namely, I competed in policy debate for 7 years and competed and coached public debate for another 12 years. Ultimately, I value being a tabula rasa judge at the core.
For PF in particular, my desire is to see debate focus predominantly on persuasion and reasoning. Evidence should be a guide to the debate, not the debate itself. Impact calculations should be obvious, explained, and well defended by logic and reasoning. Debaters should not depend on evidence to speak for itself, nor should they be unable to explain basic warrants when prompted. Kritical argumentation and topicality should only be used if it is applicable, provides needed negative/con ground, and should not be used as a time suck. Finally, debaters should be well rehearsed with signposting and telling me where they want arguments on the flow; I shouldn’t have to make that judgment for them.
*If all competitors get to round early and begin, I'll boost speaks
Southlake Carroll '21 | UT Austin '25
*firstname.lastname@example.org for the email chain*
I did PF for four years on the local and national circuit; treat me as a standard flow judge and don't be a bad person.
- Tech > Truth
- Comfortable with anything < 250wpm, but if you plan on speaking quickly, don't sacrifice clarity -- I'll need a doc for anything above that
- Fine with paraphrasing as long as not misrepresented AND you have the card cut ready to send
- Extend the content of a card, not just the author
- I presume first-speaking team if there's no offense at the end of the round, but that can be changed if args are made in round
- Do whatever you think is strategic -- I'm fine with high link counts.
- Slow down on weird args
- If you choose to dump responses, PLEASE make sure everything has a warrant and don't go ridiculously fast unless you're reading cut cards
- Read new advantages/disadvantages (and don't label them as 'overviews') if you want, but they should interact with your opponent's case
- Second rebuttal, at the minimum, should frontline any turns on case.
- Make the implication of defensive args clear
- I'll be iffy on weighing in first final, it should be in first summary unless second rebuttal chooses not to collapse
- I think I'm okay at evaluating theory debates. This is the max you should probably read in terms of progressive args
- If necessary, read whatever you need to -- I'll try to adapt to you
Speaker Points -- tell me if you do any of the bonuses
- I'll start speaks at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy
- I'll up speaks by a point if you disclose properly (full-text or OS) on the NDCA wiki
- I'll tank speaks if you steal prep
Contact me if you have any questions with the email at the top of my paradigm!
Eric Mueller Judging Philosophy
I can be convinced to be a policy maker with some exceptions. Default mode of policy making is policy advantages weighed against risks of disadvantages and consideration given for counterplans and possible solvency deficits. Multiple CPs can be irritating but also at times strategic. Obviously advantage CPs can be an exception.
I read evidence. I like comparisons of the quality of evidence compared to the other team. Not just qualifications, but unanswered warrants in the evidence. Take the time to pull warrants out of the cards and explain them. It will go a long way here. Explain why your evidence should be preferred.
I also like you to take the time to explain specifically how you think you win. Put the whole round together in a quick "story." How do you want me to view it? Compare it the other team's "story." Tell me how this is taken out and that outweighs this. It makes it easier for me to frame your approach as I decide. Give me some "big picture analysis." Don't just get mired down in line by line. I don't need 4 minutes of overview or "canned" overviews. Make specific to what is occurring in this debate round. Otherwise, it's boring.
Put me on your email chain. My email address is email@example.com.
I also often break with the conventional format. I am willing to vote for kritikal negative and affirmative arguments. So, yes. I will vote for your kritikal affirmative. In fact, I would prefer the negative debate about the offense the affirmative advocates rather than a constant resort to framework debate. That said, I will also vote negative on framework against kritikal cases. However it often comes down to an impact debate that many negatives are not very prepared for and the affirmative is usually very prepared to debate. I am always looking for something new.
It is the job of the negative to explain how K functions with respect to affirmative solvency. I think that needs to be hashed out in more specific ways than I often see occur. How do advantages with short time-frames factor into the question of whether to vote on K first? It is more clear for me with things like settler colonialism than it is with Marxism, for example. But don't assume. Take the time to explain. Make the reason it comes first very clear. How does the K undercut their turns? Be specific. Use examples. Don't make it just a non-unique disadvantage with a floating pic alternative. Sell it.
I also think there are reasons why there might be advantages left for the affirmative even given the criticism provided by the K. I think sometimes more specific affirmative evidence proves the plan can still have advantages to weigh vs. K impacts (as in Marxism) especially when the time frames are quick. Why does K come first? Has that been explored?
Framework against critical cases:
I also believe that it is necessary to answer clearly case claims by critical affirmatives that answer the voting criteria on framework. Think of framework as the disad, and case arguments as solvency that allows the framework disad to outweigh the case. Framing matters. I think "competitive equity" as a standard against critical affirmatives is often untenable for the negative. Focus more on the nature of voices and representational aspects of the need for grammar. Think semiotics. That makes voting negative on T easier in these cases. You need offense, not just terminal defense. T must be framed as offense against the case.
Quickly worded "Do both" or "Do plan and K" sometimes leave me confused as to what the world of the perm really looks like. Take the time to frame your perm for me clearly. How does it take out CP/K? How does it interact with the link to any net benefit? On the negative, hold the affirmative to clearer explanations of how the perm functions. Confusion for me usually breaks negative in the presence of a net benefit.
I’m not a big theory guy. I understand theory but I don’t like voting on it. I will if necessary.
All in all, I’m a quality of argument person. Focus more on making quality arguments rather than quantity. Kick out of stupid things early and focus on what you want to win in the block. I have a tendency to allow new explanations of old arguments in the rebuttals and love a crafty 2AR.
Hello! I debated in high school (1995-1999) and have been judging debate for the past 20 years. Here is a quick recap of my paradigm
SPEED: no issue. Talk as fast or as slow as you want.
QUALITY > QUANTITY: it is better to have a few good arguments than many bad ones.
FRAMEWORK: important but not absolutely required. Helps to frame the round, but arguments are more important.
PHILOSOPHY: especially for LD, I think it is important to incorporate philosophy into your arguments. Not as important in PF, but it doesn't hurt to have it.
SOURCES: always cite your sources. I reserve the right to check your evidence during or after the round.
CIVILITY: be good to your opponent. This is a formal environment. Don't be rude or you will lose the round even if you have better arguments.
VOTERS: always give me voters at the end of the round. I will use them as a tiebreaker if the round is close.
CX: try to trap your opponent during CX. Don't waste valuable CX time asking for clarification questions, unless absolutely necessary.
HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!
While I am a former debater and know flow, content and evidence are key for me. I will be paying close attention to each sides' contentions and their ability to refute the other team using evidence. Policy impact, human impact, and financial cost are points that I will be listening for. Aff you need to frontline your case and you need to go on offense. You cannot win on defense alone. Neg you need to delink, turn, and otherwise attack the case by Aff. I know the language of debate so don't be afraid to use it but you won't insult me by making sure a particularly crucial point is clear. If I cannot understand it then I cannot weigh it.
I am flexible on speaker points but it will be hard to earn a 30. I am willing to split speaker points -- i.e. 29.5. Today's style of debate tends to emphasize speed over effective delivery. I prefer to be able to clearly follow the contentions made by each team so move quickly but be clear. If I cannot follow your contentions then you lose. So, slow down! I also expect professionalism from all participants. Attack your opponents' points not them.
I like voters so tell me why I should vote for you.
Show me that you understand the big picture (why is your side the better choice) of your topic and can extend through to summary while refuting your opponents' contentions and you will earn my ballot. Weighing your impacts will help me see that you should win.
Pet Peeves: Exchange evidence during Prep and ask about it during Crossfire. Do not disrupt the debate by stopping to exchange evidence between speakers! This is a stalling tactic and disrupts the flow of the debate. You will be penalized for this.
I debated 2 years of PF at Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh, PA; currently debating BPD and CPD at the University of Toronto.
Include me in email chains: Boomba.Nishi@gmail.com
I will vote off the flow and what gets extended the cleanest. Tech over truth to an extent just don't be stupid about it.
Voting Issues: Only losers use them.
Speed: I’m okay with some speed just don't go nyooooom or I’ll stop flowing.
Theory: I never ran theory so with that being said probably don't read it in front of me. I’m willing to vote off of it just not the most experienced evaluating it.
2nd Rebuttal: Preferably putting down some defence
Cross: Don't care, Didn't ask
Don't Be: Rude
Make judging easy for me:
-Cleanly Extend: Not just card names. If it's dropped it's donezo.
I enjoy some banter in speeches(this doesn't mean be mean) and big fan of thought experiments
Ill give +.5 speaks for chess or footie(soccer) references or if everytime you say turn you physically turn around
Debated PF for Lakeville. I study Stats and Data Science at Wisconsin and coach at Seven Lakes.
I’ll do my best to make the correct technical decision in every round. Feel free to contact/post round if you disagree with my decision.
I vastly prefer email chains to google docs - firstname.lastname@example.org
Read content warnings. Do not use expletives without a content warning.
Crossfire is bad. It is not binding, and I generally don't listen. Please use this time to ask legitimate clarifying questions.
I flow extensions and actually care about them being good.
Have cards. If I have to sift through a random article to find out what part of it you're talking about I'm likely to just pretend the argument is an analytic.
Warrants need to exist.
Frontline in second rebuttal.
Defense isn’t sticky. Some very rare exceptions.
Speed is fine. However, reading very quickly from paraphrased docs will tank your speaks and annoy me, if you intend on going fast the least you can do is read from cut cards. "Direct quotes" aren't cut cards.
Collapse to as few arguments as possible.
Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up
I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.
If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing.
Given no other option I presume neg unless told otherwise.
How I resolve weighing
Absent comparison by debaters themselves:
I value well-warranted prereq, short circuit, and link-in arguments most.
For obvious reasons I prefer conceded, warranted, and comparative weighing.
I generally prefer weighing introduced earlier in the round.
I vote off the flow but it’s likely I don’t know the nuances of your specific category so break stuff down for me.
I would honestly prefer to judge a substance round. This being said:
I will vote for any argument you win and weigh. I’ve personally debated theory a lot more than Ks. Frivolous theory and tricks are usually bad and my threshold for responses is pretty low.
I personally think that disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. In high school I read from cut cards in rebuttal, and open sourced disclosed. This doesn’t mean I will hack for these arguments.
RVI debates are annoying. You shouldn't win for being fair, but you should win if you sufficiently prove that the interp is net bad. Feel free to argue about this in round.
These people taught me debate:
Flex prep, skipping grand, off time road maps, informal clothing, etc. is chill.
I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.
I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules. Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.
I am a parent judge, I have difficulty understanding some terminology so please send me cases @ email@example.com if possible before the round, i will also add 1 speaker point as compensation
I am a former debator and interper and L.D. Bell High School Grad. I have competed in both PF and LD debate. My training is a traditional style.
Overall, I prefer quality over quanitity arguments. I want to be able to understand you. My judging will be based on who makes the best points, not who has the most cards.
In PF I want to see equal contribution from both partners.
In LD, I put emphasis on value. It should be the foundation of your argument.
I will deduct speaker points for disrespect towards your opponents. Be kind and be respectful to one another. Remember that although this is a competitive event, ultimately you're here because it's something to enjoy.
If you want to send me your case, you can do so to my email firstname.lastname@example.org. This is up to you, it is not required. I would prefer if you didn't spread, but if you must, please send me your case.
pronouns: he/him/his // email@example.com - put me on the email chain // DOF at SLHS
I am the Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I debated in high school and college in Wisconsin and Minnesota, doing PF, Congress, and NPDA Parliamentary Debate. This paradigm has been considerably pared down for clarity and simplicity.
Conflicts: University of Minnesota NPDA, James Madison Memorial (WI), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Seven Lakes (TX)
PF: Updated 12/6/2021
· I flow very carefully.
· I am theoretically willing to vote on any argument, but worse arguments have a harder time getting my ballot, for obvious reasons.
· Second rebuttal should frontline your case completely and ideally begin condensing the debate.
· Second summary is too late to make any new arguments other than weighing or new argument comparison.
· I will make decisions based on what I’ve flowed.
· Arguments that are well-warranted with good evidence are more likely to win. I think that PF is generally bad at warranting arguments.
· You should not misrepresent your evidence. If you do and I or your opponents catch it, you will lose.
· If you are debating a team who is misrepresenting evidence, please tell me specifically 1) what evidence and 2) what they are misrepresenting.
· Paraphrasing is generally less strategic than reading from cut cards, because paraphrased arguments are in general more poorly constructed than those read from cut cards.
· The earlier you begin comparing and weighing arguments, the more compelling those arguments are by the final focus speeches.
· I dislike judging most contemporary theory debates in PF, but I am confident in my ability to evaluate them.
· I will use a reasonability framework to evaluate theory. This means that I might vote on terminal defense or gut-check style arguments. The more contrived or esoteric your theory shell, the lower my threshold will be for your opponents to prove that it is not a voting issue.
· I am very unlikely to vote on an RVI.
· I will not vote for arguments about the size of your school or arguments that complain about the presence of theory in the debate.
Congress: Updated 12/6/2021
· I value your content over your delivery, though both are important.
· I think most Congress speeches really, really need far more analysis and warranting.
· I highly value speakers who are prepared to debate and further debate on the item at issue. Rehash is the worst.
· Early round speeches should make constructive arguments, explain the bill’s solvency, and clear up any definitional issues with the terms of the bill.
· The later you speak on a bill, the more refutation and summarization your speech should include.
· In my opinion, it should be pretty rare that an item of debate has more than 5 or 6 speeches.
· Questioning is a factor in my ranks, but it’s rare that it makes more than a miniscule difference.
My name is Archana Rao. I have judged about 3 tournaments and at least about 8 rounds of PF debate so far. I am a lay judge.
I prefer the candidates speak clearly and slowly
I am looking for good data to support the pro and con stances
Good understanding of the stance by both participants and team effort is a big plus
When a team makes an effort to completely understand and then refute the opposition, bonus marks
Have a clear structure to the argument and following through very advantageous
Please give a roadmap before your speeches, and signpost during your speeches so I know where to mark and to flow your speeches.
Overall, structure your speeches in a way where I can easily understand whats going so I can judge your rounds easily.
And most importantly, have fun.
Best of luck,
University of Alabama '22 (M.S. Statistics)
University of Alabama '19 (M.S. Geography)
Mississippi State University '12 (B.S. in Atmospheric Science)
Ridgeland High School '08
Email contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Background: I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school. I primarily participated in public forum debate and international and domestic extemporaneous speaking, but I occasionally competed in LD, congress, and various other limited prep speech events. I attended the NSDA tournament twice in international extemporaneous speaking. I competed at the CFL National tournament three times: once in extemporaneous speaking, once in public forum, and once in congress. I have stayed active in speech and debate by judging a few tournaments a year and helping coach public forum debate teams on the high school level.
My professional background is in broadcast meteorology. I have worked as an on-camera meteorologist since 2012 in Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama. I am now a graduate student at the University of Alabama where I am a researcher for the Center for Advanced Public Safety studying better ways to communicate weather information. More specifically, how forecasts are communicated graphically and/or verbally to an audience.
I mention all this to emphasize that I believe strongly that communication and delivery in public forum debate are paramount, and I always find myself weighing it to some degree in my decision.
How to succeed
Speeches: Nothing excites me more than a talented, confident, controlled speaker that commands my attention every time they speak. I despise jargon in all forms. This especially applies to terms that should be reserved for policy debate rounds. I expect you to speak to me as if I know absolutely nothing about this topic. You should never assume that your audience knows something. I believe the best first speeches (and not just for the first speaker team, this is for both teams) contain some background information or context on the topic. Organized speeches with clear signposting are an absolute must. Evidence is obviously important, but I will pay special attention to how it is woven throughout your speeches. Are you making it clear why this evidence is important? Why I should trust it? What is its impact? Do you have multiple levels of evidence to support every argument you plan on making? One of the most important things you can do to sway me is to explain to me how a vote for your side affects and/or changes the status quo.
Crossfire: I will pay attention to everything said during crossfire. While a debate may not be won solely by the crossfire performance, it can quickly be lost. A great debater is one who does not lose their persuasiveness even when they have to think fast on their feet. You should be able to defend all your arguments and evidence without hesitation during crossfire. I will include another important note about crossfire and how I think debaters should use it to their advantage below. What I believe to be an extremely effective communication strategy during crossfire that you may want to consider is not forgetting to make eye contact and speak to the judge. Do not limit your focus during crossfire to your opponent or your papers in front of you. Engaging me in crossfire and making me feel included will absolutely earn you some extra speaker points.
Misc.: Here is the extra note about crossfire. I firmly believe that any offense or defense gained during crossfire must be carried into the later speeches and in an overt manner. Many debaters fall into a trap of spending too much time trying to disprove or discredit their opponents' cases without ensuring they have sold their own case. This is a delicate balance, and it cannot be overlooked.
I will flow each debate carefully, but I do not consider myself a technical judge. You are free to run whatever arguments or strategies you choose; if you can sell it well, I will probably buy it. At the end of the round, my decision is usually for the team who wows me the most. Sometimes that is the team who I think wins the most number of arguments. Sometimes that is the team who wins the strongest arguments. Sometimes it is the team that had the best delivery and persuasiveness.
Please feel free to contact me via email if you have any questions.
Hey my name is Venkat Abhishek Sambaraj and I debated all four years of my high school career at local, state, and national level so I am well experienced with the debate community. I focused heavily on Domestic Extemporaneous speaking and Public Forum but also participated in Oratory, Informative, and Congress. My paradigms are as follows:
Speech: I weigh analysis over presentation, especially in extemporaneous. Presentation is still required but if you provide solid analysis I may be convinced to give you the higher rank. Oratory and informative of course is all about presentation.
Public Forum: Did public forum for three years so I am able to flow and keep track of the round. I like to see clash and please WEIGH, that lets me know what to vote on in the round. Collapsing/crystalizing is important, don't go for every single argument on the flow. Always have frontlines and the second speaking team should address any attacks made by the opponents. I don't really like to see K's and theories in PF, leave that to LD and Policy. If you ask for a card to be looked at, I will most definitely look at it and if I feel there is a card that's been heavily clashed upon I may request it myself once the round ends. Final thing, when it comes to crossfire ask questions that are relevant and don't be a douche when it comes to questioning. I like aggressiveness but as long as it stays respectful and isn't rude.
Director of Debate at Westside High School (he/him or they/them)
Top Level/Stuff I Actually Care About that Applies to 100% of Debates (Please Read Carefully)
Please don't call me "judge". Eric is fine. If calling an adult by their first name is weird to you, my students call me Mr. S and you're welcome to do the same.
I start from the assumption that debate is fundamentally performative, so feel free to do your thing. I will do my best to evaluate your performance with minimal interference; alas, I am only human and am as subject to bias as the next person. Part of your job is to help minimize that interference. You can do that by making arguments that are contextual to those of your opponent, identifying central questions that should appear in the RFD, supporting claims with warrants, doing comparative analysis between you and your opponents’ arguments, and providing me with clear judge instruction. Don’t assume that I know things. Err on the side of caution and explain.
Speed and technical argumentation are more than welcome so long as they are not functioning to exclude people. Remember: Truth is constitutive of Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate. Regardless of speed and techne, I appreciate debaters who flag important stuff as such using verbal and non-verbal cues. Slowing down, changing your voice and repeating things are powerful methods of communicating that something is important which you should take advantage of. Jargon can enable precision, but it usually functions to make bad debaters think they are making good arguments when they are barely saying anything. You should simplify when possible to prevent me from misunderstanding you or thinking you are using jargon as a crutch.
I flow most rounds on paper. Do with that information what you will.
Please be efficient when sending documents, giving road maps, and other basic things that typically slow down rounds. Cross-x and prep time are yours. As far as I am concerned all cross-x is open and all prep time is flex prep, just make sure that when the cross-x timer goes off you start prep time before you continue. If you try to steal prep I will stop you until a timer is running again.
For speaks, I start at 28.5 and adjust up and down from there based on efficiency, clarity, smart strategic decisions, and your overall ethos/affect. Be funny, be serious, I don't really care. Just do your thing well.
My ballot is a teaching tool. I can and will nuke your speaks and/or give you an L (depending on severity) for general unkindness and exclusionary behavior. I do not care how many bids you have, who your coach is, or where you go to school. Wheaton's law is always in effect. Hopefully, consequences for unacceptable behavior incentivize you to be better, if only in front of me. Conversely, if you are especially kind and accommodating you will likely see a nice bump in speaks. The activity is exclusive enough, it doesn't need your help. If at any point you are uncomfortable with things that are happening in the round, please feel free to email privately and I will work with you and the tournament staff to resolve that issue.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." -Desmond Tutu
eDebate has been horrible for clarity. You should be speaking at about 70-80% of your normal speed if you spread. Do your best to resolve audio issues before the round. I will miss things if I can’t understand you. Please keep a local recording of your speeches in case you cut out. I’d hate for you to wear your voice out giving speeches a second time. Send remaining prep in chat.
Thoughts on Arguments by Genre/Marginal Issues that Only End Up Mattering in 20% of Debates (Don't read too much into these)
Strong case pushes are criminally neglected in contemporary debate. More case 2NRs would be welcome.
I tend to think that initial conditions determine how events play out, so uniqueness generally controls the direction of the link. That said, I am receptive to arguments that it does not in a particular instance so long as there is evidentiary basis. The more specific the links, the better. The link story should be articulated in terms of risk, not causality. One makes you sound like a reasonable person giving a measured explanation of how the likelihood of an event becomes intolerable if we alter existing conditions, the other makes you sound alarmist.
Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean affirmative on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean negative on PICs. Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. Judge kicks aren’t a thing. I know I am in the minority on this, but permutations are full plan text + parts of the counterplan being combined with the plan. Will saying "perm: do both", "perm: do the counterplan", etc. result in me not evaluating it? No, it's just a pet peeve.
K framework is theory. You should treat it as such. I am interested in resolving questions of how this debate, the broader activity, myself, you, your opponents, and any audience that might be present are implicated within your arguments. If debate is more than a game then show me how by making me think about questions that affect the way I coach my students and the way I live my life outside of debate. The likelihood that I will find the kritik persuasive diminishes with each additional off case position that gets extended in the block. I’m a big fan of the one to three off K strategy (more time = more explanation and examples), but again do you. Generally speaking, if you aren’t winning the thesis/theory of power, there is very little chance I will think your links make sense. There may be instances where this is untrue, but it is true more often than it's not. You need to explain to me how the link is an independent DA to some aspect of the affirmative if you want me to evaluate it as such. Examples are key at the link level. As with CPs, judge kicks of the alt are not a thing. Be sure to explain how links are DAs to the perm, even if you aren’t going for it in the 2NR. I’m much more sympathetic to a “no link” argument extended in the 2AR if you have not boxed out the possibility of a world where they don’t link.
I'm not too particular about how the aff relates to the topic, just be sure that relationship is clear (see the first half of the FW section for more information on this). Again, how you do on the thesis/theory of power level determines how well you access offense. Knowing your narrative and having consistency of explanation from 1AC to 2AR is crucial. You would be well served to have thought through a case list justified by your counter-interp against framework so that you can talk about actual debates that would play out under you model. Answers to SSD are often really bad, everyone should be taking the "why is it uniquely good to read the K on the aff?" question way more seriously than they are at present. If you play music or include other elements that get classified under “performance debate” (again, all debate is performative) you should ask yourself what it does for you argumentatively. Having a cool vibe is not a reason to vote aff on its own.
Debate is a game that can be more than a game, just like any other competitive activity. Whether the outcome or process of the game has value depends on the meaning it is imbued with by participants and audience members. Not all framework needs to be T-USFG. Tactics frameworks, revolutionary performative fiat frameworks, etc. are all fine, just make sure you have actually thought out the implications of these models as you would reading T-USFG. Debate is an activity distinct from other speech oriented activities, and I care about maintaining that distinction. Here are some questions to guide your thinking regardless of your vision of debate: What sorts of discussions matter and why do they matter more than others we could be having? Why debate rather than some other mode of competition or scholarly/activist work? What is the role of the aff? What is the role of the negative? How does clash work? What limits exist under your interpretation? How is the interp itself and the limits it places on the topic predictable? What is the judge's role in all of this? What does my ballot do? On T-USFG: Yes, I will vote for it. You need to focus on how the affs interp does not provide a stable locus point for clash but your interp does since this question is key to a lot of the other offense you plan to go for. K teams can switch sides, engage iterative testing, develop advocacy skills, etc, so you need to explain to me why your model is the best at those things rather than pretending that it is the only model that cares about them. That said, most K debaters don't have very good answers to SSD, so you would do well to capitalize on this. Fairness can be an impact, but you cannot just warrantlessly assert that the procedural sort is good. Targeting ways in which they assume fairness of that sort is generally pretty persuasive to me. I tend to think of TVAs as counterplans to the Affs interp. Thinking through caselists and the ways in which the topical version enables more in depth (clashy) debates about the issue the aff cares about is beneficial. Finally, the small schools DA is a factually untrue argument at best and punching down at worst (when debaters from large, established programs read it against actual small school debaters).
The more specific to the topic the interpretation is the better off you are. I default to competing interps as I think that one of the aff's burdens is to defend their choice of advocacy. Reasonability is an argument for the counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. The limits debate typically determines how I feel about the reasonability of the aff. Precision standards are underutilized and can give you access to all sorts of interesting education impacts that can be cross applied as solvency deficits on case.
I enjoy strategic uses of theory, but you have to slow down to give me more pen time; make complete arguments with a claim, some warrants, and an impact; and engage in comparative analysis. Fast, blippy, or frivolous theory is not going to get very far with me. I understand the strategic utility of debating like this, but if you go for a strategy that is built to flow test your opponent and go for a dropped argument or bamboozle them, you run the risk of me missing an argument or being bamboozled as well. Further, I don't hold the dodging of clash in very high regard, so even if I do end up resolving the debate in your favor don't expect me to be very happy about being subjected to lowest common denominator debate for an hour or two. Below are my thoughts on specific theory arguments that often come up (a lot of this is for LD):
- I believe that disclosure is a good norm; however, I am receptive to good arguments for exceptions, as I believe such exceptions exist. You should read this argument if you are debating at a national circuit tournament, TFA State, or a large TFA qualifier in elimination rounds against an opponent of with roughly equivalent experience from a similarly resourced school in order to avoid me siding with your opponent that disclosure is bad in that instance.
- I'm agnostic on the question of 1AR theory.
- My default position is no RVIs, but you can move me on this.
- TJFs are fine. AFC is not. You can win that your framework leads to better debates, but I do not believe your opponent is under any obligation to concede anything to you.
- I will evaluate the debate at the end of the 2AR. I have committed the sin of voting for this heinous variety of argument once and have been doing penance ever since.
please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Colleyville Heritage HS '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit), (I also messed around in WSD and LD)
University of Oklahoma '24: currently doing ~policy~ (i study poli sci, phil, and econ)
welcome to my paradigm:
Warrant, Weigh, Win- it's that simple.
- it needs to be on the flow, I need clean extensions and weighing if you want me to vote on it
- for it to be an extension, I need claim, warrant, and impact
- tell me why/how you're winning and why your argument matters (write my ballot for me)
- terminalize impacts
- please come in pre-flowed and prepared to debate (i want to start the round asap)
- signpost, I want to write down all of your wonderful arguments
- SPEED: i honestly don't care how fast you go, know your opponent (if they can't handle the speed slow down), I flow on paper if I'm not writing stuff down, slow down
+1 speaker points if you create an email chain AND USE IT PROPERLY ie. don't just set it up and never use it, or only send case and call for cards throughout the round (a proper email chain sends before every speech)
- quality > quantity
- tech > truth (I try as much as possible)
- default util
- 1st rebuttal shouldn't be doing case extensions (unless it's like an ov or fw), i honestly don't really flow it, i already got the args from case, you're just repeating yourself at that point
- 2nd Speaking: frontline offense in rebuttal pls
- sticky defense: if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense isn't sticky. if 2nd rebuttal doesn't, defense is sticky.
- final focus should mirror the summary (if it's not in the summary it shouldn't be in final) (weighing should also be the same)
- PLEASE DON'T GO FOR EVERYTHING, collapse and narrow down the debate
- I didn't run progressive args in high school but I have a general understanding of how they function, you can run them in front of me but it has to be clearly warranted (also, the other side should understand what you are reading, if you run this stuff against novices, small schools, etc. I will vote you down and give you 25s)
- if you want to skip grand i won't be mad #abolishgrandcross
evidence: (enjoy this cute little rant)
sparknotes version: don't do anything stupid and don't take forever to pull up evidence, evidence should be cut properly and cited with a working link, if your opponents are doing something bad/sketch with ev make it a voting issue I AM VERY LIKELY TO VOTE ON IT (if it's legit)
I literally don't understand why evidence ethics are so bad. Just make an email chain and send all the evidence you're reading before every speech, it's not hard and cx/ld have been doing it forever, it doesn't put you behind. Also, if for some reason you choose to make the round harder and take more time by not doing an email chain please do not take long to pull up your evidence. I really don't want to set a time limit so just don't take 10 minutes to pull up evidence. The standard should be: if you read it in the speech, expect it to be called (so have the cut card with link and cites ready to go).
If you have any questions about what to do in terms of presenting evidence, I have linked the NSDA rules below. I will at least give you 25s for a violation. If your opponents are in violation, make it a voting issue, no cap. I will vote them down.
- if you do make it a voting issue, i will call for the evidence in question to make sure there is an actual violation (please don't think it's game over for you if someone calls you out for bad evidence but it's actually legit)
- I need cut cards with (at least) a link to the full article
- I know this is a lot but there are too many debaters trying to cheat the system with bad evidence and I just want to make it crystal clear how I am judging rounds and that I'm not making up things just as an excuse to vote debaters down (and yes unfortunately I need to make that distinction)
Other people I try to judge like/influenced my debate style:
UPDATED 1/31/2021 BERKELEY 2021 UPDATE
I have been judging high school debate for the past 12 years now, and I did Parli in High School, and Parli and LD in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.
I want on the email chain please: firstname.lastname@example.org
- I know how to flow and will flow.
- This means I require a road map.
- I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
- I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
- I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions. If you want a better view into my beliefs on theory go read my theory section in my LD portion. (scroll down)
- Be strategic and make good life choices.
- Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
- I will vote on case turns.
- I will call for cards if it comes down to it.
I tend to vote more for truth over tech. I have recently found myself being interventionist against cards with problematic authors or cards cut to exclude marginalized groups from the debate space. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.
Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD.
Things to consider:
- I see my self as a truth over tech K judge. High theory, love for dead white male philosophers, and time wasting theory spikes are really not my thing and not what I am interested in having to evaluate. I will. But I'm probably not the judge for you if you think your two line theory spikes are something I should take seriously.
- Your K's should link and I need an alt that is more than 'Drop Aff Vote Neg'. At least care about what your K is talking about instead of making it just a means to my ballot.
- Despite seeing myself as a K judge I was mainly reading DAs and counter plans in college so I am pretty good at evaluating those if that's the type of debater you are i got you.
- I will vote on RVI's if they apply. A well warranted theory argument or T that is part of the main Neg strat that is not dropped does not deserve an RVI nor will I vote on that RVI.
- Education is a voter to me, but that's because as an educator I feel like Debaters should be able to get something out of this activity.
- I will look at your docs during your speech, and I do so for two reasons. One: I want to spell the author's names right. My quality of life when judging has drastically increased since speech docs. Don't take this away from me. Two: I'm checking against you clipping cards.
- I probably need real articulated abuse in round to vote for your theory or RVI or whatever. Your arbitrary "Neg can only run this many of this argument" probably doesn't have the abuse story I am looking for.
- On the note of super complex philosophical arguments, I try really hard to understand what you are talking about and there has only been one round this past season that I felt totally lost in the lit. But if I don't get it I probably will not vote on it.
- K probably comes before T.
- Lay or Traditional LDers make sure you are framing your arguments via your framework. Do the work for me.
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.
I'm good with theory but that doesn't mean I buy yours. And that doesn't mean I live for it. LD theory is always changing and adapting and I don't buy that a lot of it is good or correct or needed. If you want to win your theory spend time on it and put a voter on it. Reading 80 theory spikes in the AC wastes all of our time. But just doing work on theory isn't enough to win it. I do not like frivolous theory. I don't want to promise I will or will not vote for it it really depends on how the rounds go but if you are running what I see as frivolous theory then I probably won't vote for you.
I define frivolous theory to be:
- Theory spikes read in the AC at the bottom that will never be used for anything. Just read another card for your contentions.
- Theory that tries to get debaters to debate under a super restrictive requirement.
- Theory that could easily go away with a "we meet".
My brightline for "we meet" on theory will vary depending on what it is. But most often if I can reasonably agree there is some type of "we meet" and no articulated actual abuse then I will probably buy there is no reason to vote on the theory.
Speaks will be disclosed if they are asked for. Range varies.
Sequoyah High School 21' Georgia State Uni 25' Phil Major. College debater in Open CX.
Judges I really agree with and their paradigms resemble my view of debate: Andrew Shaw, Christopher Langone, Jared Croitoru (should be an ordinal 1 for anyone).
Joshuasp.email@example.com (put me on the email chain)
1 - K / Larp
2 - Theory / Topicality
2 - Stock Framework (ie. Kant, Rawls)
2 - Light Tricks (less than 2 minutes)
3 - High Framework (ie. Hegel, Deleuze)
4 - Heavy Tricks (Your whole case is just tricks and a priori's hidden everywhere)
I am good with any arg that isn't blatantly racist, sexist or, homophobic.
I will scribble on my paper flow if thats what you want and I will give my scribbled dinosaur to the K debater who gets me to do it.
I debate in open college policy
4 years LD, natcir and GA local. 1 bid round and a nat qual. 1st seed durham
Coach for Sequoyah High School and also private coaching (Current student(s): Vandegrift BM, Brophy SA, mhs DS.)
LD topic specific stuff real quick:
I think aff's should have an explicit text of what they defend in the AC unless it is a K - this topic allows very shady 1ar's and unless that's your intent from the AC (which if done well can be very enjoyable) I think it will lead to messy debates which are no fun to be in or judge.
I think the best debates in LD have a plan aff and a K neg - this debates have sufficient tech for critical thinking and also have time explain their thoughts in the given time structure.
What I am good at evaluating
I am great for plan rounds, K rounds and theory rounds. Any K lit is fine, the crazier the more fun, I love cyberfeminsim, psychoanalysis, various cap K's like racial cap, whatever, do what you are good with because that will be the best articulated round.
I can evaluate any philosophically based argument as long as there is effort put into explanation - however I am p knowledgeable abt most philosophy bases from Nietzsche to Baudrillard to Cioran.
I like advantage affs with stock impacts like nuke war, its what I used a lot.
Fav lit bases: Pess, Cyberfem, Racial cap, Psychoanalysis, Heidegger, Cap, IR K's.
Basically I understand p much any K you throw at me, just make sure you win the K. Win ontology or TOP and u win p much, I love K > theory weighing.
Plz have a thesis card in ur 1AC/1NC. Theory of power / ontology is extremely important to me and if you win the links without winning the theory of power, sorry bud, you lost.
I believe that most K's can function under "the ROB is to vote for the better debater", just use the K links to say they are a bad debater
I will evaluate re-articulation in the 1ar/2ar or new extrapolation in the 1ar/2ar. I think that unless the K takes a firm stance on something it is fair ground up until the 2ar which must draw its offense and defensive args from the 1ar.
This is what I used the most my senior year, I like creative plan affs that destroy whatever the initial purpose of the topic was.
Extinction first is kinda OP.
I don't believe a solvency advocate is needed, however have solvency please to how something the plan does solves the advantage.
Whole res tends to be surprisingly stragetic.
1ar theory is the most powerful advantage that the aff has.
I default DTD, CI, RVI Good. Fairness is a voter. Education is a voter. I err fairness first. Education weighing can be strategic though against a fairness based CI or shell. If paradigm issues are not extended through I default to these ^
I like disclosure
Absent a specified violation I assume "violation: they do"
I think pragmatics ow semantics but a semantic collapse is always appreciated too. I will always prefer a limits 2n to a definitions 2n though. If you for limits or ground, contextualize what ground the aff kills or how large the limits they create are, absent this contextualization I will usually err aff on pragmatic offense.
Ground and clash are best framed through limits.
I don't believe framework is inherently violent but I understand the reasons as to why people say it is - I can go either way.
I dislike heavy definition oriented T-shells
The grammar DA is chill
Assume I don't know what you are talking about - I love a good syllogism.
I am constantly learning more abt phil and have judged or used most possible FW's and understand them more than I used to, I am still learning here as everyone should be :)
Just do what you do. I will vote on it. Make the ballot an easy one. I do not appreciate tricks and the more tricks you have like the lower speaks you will get. These are not fun debates to judge and if you are fine with getting a W27 or W28 then yes pref me for tricks. (if u larp u r more likely to win and will get higher speaks so j do that :) )
Net benefit is appreciated. CP theory can be persuasive.
I believe the perm is an addition to the affirmative plan ie Aff+CP/K > CP/K > Aff
However if the perm text states it is a test of competitive it becomes a question of mutual exclusivity
I rarely give lower than 28, if you are in VLD at a nat tourney you are probs better than a 28. I average around a low 29 for what speaks I give.
Extra .2 speaks for following my friends Instagram @I_kant_debate and putting a screenshot of it being followed in the doc
I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.
Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.
My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.
-Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though.
-You have to frontline offense in second rebuttal
-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you
-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited.
***Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc.
*** If you're second flight and the tournament is already running behind and you walk into the room and haven't flipped and pre-flowed, I am going to be annoyed
law magnet 20
email for the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org and call me asya (like asia)
--short version: i read k's on the aff and the neg, k affs should have a substantive relationship to the resolution, plan based affs should actually be topical, evidence quality matters, conditionality is good, fairness is an internal link, definitely know nothing about the topic. kindness before anything else.
--please be clear not because i don’t understand you but because it makes me sad
--i have an rbf and honestly sound like i'd rather be anywhere else -- that's not true, i just am a sophomore in college judging debate rounds on a saturday
--zoom: please have your camera on (absent connectivity issues), make sure all the people are good, slow down a little.
NOTES FOR NOVICES:
--call me asya
--please don't waste time between speeches, time yourselves
--be kind to your opponents, they're learning too!
-- clash debates are stale to me but i understand them well from both sides.
fairness = impact................x..........fairness = internal link
i <3 all k affs.............................x...please defend a change from the squo
presumption in the 2nr ...x..........................conceding the case in your last speech
generic cards about institutional engagement...............................x..specific cards about engaging the topic
rez basis for fiat.......................x..........don't care
-- k v k debates rely on HEAVY judge instruction, explain whose impacts matter, how to evaluate solvency, clear link stories etc
-- warrants should not get lost in flashy vocabulary
-- never a fan of long overviews or roadmaps that are like "permutation, then link debate" say you're taking the k, i'll flow straight down and hope you're doing the line by line set by the 2ac
--CP theory: debating controls everything. pics out of topic words in the plan are great especially when functionally competitive, states CP is fine, international counterplans bad
--judgekick is default if the neg says their CP is conditional. however, aff teams are welcome to make judgekick bad arguments, I just am not going to stick them with the CP unless you say something.
--you'll get good points for debating the case
I evaluate debate like a policy debater that reads k's and read 'larp' or more traditional arguments in high school. I value really good thought out strategies over obfuscating the debate. Debate should be about substantive issues so it's easier to get me to reject the argument and not the team for theory. I think there are some things that are just reasonably true.
By the way, I flow what you say, not the speech doc.
if you need help preffing me, nate kruger gave me this guide:
k - 1
larp - 1
theory (topicality) - 1
phil - 4
tricks/theory - 5
hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. email chain! email@example.com
above all else, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth.
i also give good speaks! (see speaks section)
most important thing:
so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you have enough time in summary, i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.
other less important stuff:
online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)
also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room
speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".
whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.
defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.
new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.
i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.
weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.
i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.
i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).
no friv theory, no tricks >:(
i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus
i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).
one caveat: if you are reading an argument on complete novices that don't understand prog just to get an easy win, you will be dropped (taken from Brian Zhu's paradigm)
i'm generally very generous with speaks. i give 30s often (check my judging history!)
if you debate really well and the round is close i will probably feel bad for dropping one team over the other so i will give everyone 30s as compensation (you'll also get 30s if you debate well regardless of how well the other team debated)
i will tank your speaks to the minimum if your rebuttal "re-strengthens your own case" and you spend 2 minutes just repeating cards with no frontlining (esp. first rebuttal)
if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!
I did PF in middle school and high school and have experience judging both PF and LD.
I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. Rebuttal should be line by line. In summary, I prefer line by line but big picture is fine too.
Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.
For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you.
I will call up evidence if there's a specific card that's super relevant to the round.
If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.
E-mail chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.
CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits are obv needed.
Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed.
K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk.
Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round.
Note though that as I have limited policy experience, talking too fast or being unclear has a greater risk of me not flowing anything since I’m not versed in topic lit.
Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.
Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.
Again, because of my limited policy experience, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any topic literature.
Open CX is okay with me.
Tech > Truth most of the time
ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.
All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.
Hi, my name is Minfen, I won’t understand too much jargon and please go slow. I hope you have a good time! Thanks!
1. As a judge, It is a priority of mine to not let bias and predisposed opinions of topics to influence how I judge a competitor. I do not want to award winners just because I agreed with their side beforehand. Fairness comes from a clean slate beforehand and a newfound opinion after the round. I value the the time and effort you put in to debate such challenging topics so I try my best to be someone that really trusts and listens to what you say.
2. I value respect over anything. Respect the judge of course, but also respect your opponent. Losing a round is not worth an attitude of disrespect. I have seen too many rounds recently where people talked over the other and it got ugly. I do not like that. Also remember, this is something that should be considered fun. Enjoy yourselves.
3. it is often thought of to take debate as way more serious than it should be. Humor, puns, and side jokes are ideal. I get bored if it’s all talk and no games. Give a joke or two. Even if other jokes do not like this, it makes it more lively for me.
4. paint me a picture. As a future lawyer, I need to see a picture and a concrete image of your plan and ideas rather than having to try to imagine something in my mind. That makes me get lost in the “what if’s” and “could be‘s.
5. Imagine yourself as a policy maker or politician rather than debate competitor. Convince me that you know how to get the job done and that you know what you are talking about. It is more convincing than talking like a student trying to win a debate competition.
6. Refer to me as “judge”. I am nice, you can make conversation with me. I love meeting competitors and hearing about what they do because it is something that I used to do.
7. pace of speaking is a huge part of how I judge. If you talk too fast, I get lost. A little goes a long way when you keep your pace under control.
8. Snark is okay, don’t be a jerk, please.
9. Know and understand your evidence. Become an expert of it.
10. Prove to me that there ARE flaws and that you CAN fix them.
I am a first-time parent judge.
Do not speak too fast. I have basic knowledge on the topic but do not assume I will understand your argument without explanations. I will look at the big picture of the round to evaluate it.
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!
I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly.