Summer Debate Tournament I
2021 — Langley, BC/CA
Oratory Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I mostly judge PF these days; if you have questions about other events, or more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I competed primarily in LD and NPDA, so I'm pretty technical and flow-oriented.
Speaker points are based off of a combination of skill (like a clean collapse, a really efficient refutation speech, or a creative/ well-crafted case) and being nice. Memes can also help.
Obviously, I will not evaluate new arguments in summary or final focus, except in response to new arguments that your opponents have made. This means you should reconstruct in the second rebuttal. I will accept limited cross-applications of case or arguments you've already read, since those aren't new arguments, but if you want to read new cards or analytics, you should do that the first speech you are able to.
Having a citation for something doesn't automatically make it true; you should explain why the author comes to that conclusion. In other words, have a warrant. I will check evidence if it seems sketchy or I suspect you are powertagging; if you can't provide it (including a legitimate citation, delineation of what you did/didn't read in round, the context of the quote, and so on), I will not evaluate the argument.
Speed is fine, but make sure your opponents are okay with it too! Bad spreading (i.e., mumbling, having unclear signposting) will be met with bad speaker points.
Theory, Kritiks, and other progressive arguments are fine, but if your opponent isn't familiar with progressive arguments, do your best to simplify and explain them to them to not exclude people from the round.
Only arguments that get made in your speeches get flowed, so if you provide evidence during cross or prep time, please make sure to read it during your speech. Also bear in mind that even if you provided evidence to your opponent, that doesn't mean the judge has seen it.
Please do impact weighing! Also please collapse - it makes rounds exponentially easier to judge and ensures you don't drop arguments against your case.
I am a flow judge, I have done public forum before which means I am generally fine with speed. However, if you speak too fast or you are not being clear to the point where I can not understand your points, I will not consider it as a voter for the round. I do listen to crossfire, however, I do not flow crossfire. Therefore you need to tell me what happened in the crossfire that is important for your side in your speeches.
If you want me to vote for you, you need to extend your argument in both summary and final focus. Weighing is also really important, I would prefer all teams to weigh so that the round will be more clear. Evidence is important in the round, however, if it doesn't logically make sense, I will not vote of it. I would prefer signposting in your speeches as this is going to help me follow your case and ideas better.
Keep track of your time and your opponents time. I'll trust you on prep.
Don't go over time because it will impact your speaking score.
The last thing, I disclose unless I am not allowed to do so.
Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.
1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)
2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.
3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.
4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.
5. Don't be rude.
**If you spin around 5 times, jump up and down 20 times and yell like a goat, you get 29 and above.**
1. I do debate
2. If I can't understand you, I don't know just leave and re-join, if I still l can't hear you still then I don't know your probably gonna get low speaks.
3. I will flow, talk at whatever speed you want, as long as you don't speak faster than Thomas Huang, your good.
4. Weigh, if you don't weigh I don't know how to judge you, at that point, I won't weigh your impacts. Then I will judge depending on who has the most amount of offense. Also in your impact give me a number because, without a quantification, I can't weigh an argument.
5. The defense won't really help you win. It might wash the argument but it won't be weighed.
6. Make sure to warrant your argument, I will buy whatever argument you give me as long as it's warranted. Also if you drop your case, you better have offense because if you drop the case without offense you lose.
7. Extend rebuttals and different reconstructions and arguments. by that don't just say, extend this, please extend the warrant and the impact.
8. Time your own speeches, I will also time but I hope you time yourselves because I forget. Also if you go over your speech time by like 15 seconds your good, but anything over that, I will reduce speaks.
Do well, if you make a naruto reference you get plus one speaks or if you include a sad life quote I will give you extra speaks.
If you like Soccer, you lose PERIOD.
If you dis-like pho, you lose and I will give you low speaks. (I will ask this question at the beginning of the round)
Look at David Paik's paradigm for reference.
I shall be chill and I hope you have fun. (Don't be mean, because I don't like mean debaters)
Hi my name is Sean and I have been debating for more than about 3 years right now. I mainly did public forum and cndf, thus I will flow every speech and base the victory mainly on flow and not on speaking style or the speed of the speech.
But to go a little bit in depth of what I base my rounds off.
1. If there is a direct clash between the two impacts (ex. Money vs Money or Lives vs Lives) this will be my top priority as to who wins the debate.
2. If there is not a direct clash between impacts or if both sides weigh on different aspects, then I will base my decision off the better warrant or link. (Whoever can explain how their impact is going to happen better)
Thats pretty much it...
I've done Public Forum all throughout my high school years and coached for two more.
Just a couple things:
1. If you're going to use a framework, and expect me to judge under your framework, please tell me why your framework is valid. If I'm not convinced that your limitation of the debate is fair or reasonable, then I won't use it. (For the most part, however, I really do not like voting on a framework)
2. I will flow your crossfires, but I won't consider them in my decision unless you reference something mentioned during the crossfires directly in your speeches.
3. Please make sure you weigh - I don't like it when I have to do that on my own.
4. If you're going to reference a card, please read that card out (or summarize it somewhat), instead of just referring to it by the citation. I won't be able to remember or flow down every evidence card that you bring up otherwise.
5. Anything brought up in the Final Focus must have also been brought up in the Summary, with the exception of the first summary speaker who does not have to extend rebuttals if they haven't been responded to yet.
6. I'm fine with speed for the most part as long as it does not compromise enunciation and articulation.
Other than that, if you have any questions, feel free to ask!
1. Weighing and extending is important in my opinion so you should do that.
2. I don't flow cross because that's too tedious for me so if something important comes up, make sure it's in your speech. :)
3. don't bring up new evidence or arguments in ff, please.
4. Give me a solid warranting cause that shows that you have swag.
5. Please time yourselves. (Preferably with a 1756 grandfather clock, but any device will suffice.)
6. Lastly, this goes without saying but be nice cause being rude is toxic.
I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 6 years of experience in debate.
What I'm looking for in debate rounds:
I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.
If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.
I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.
In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.
Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.