Coppell Classic Swing
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
Varsity PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
email@example.com for the chain
*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*
Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.
You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.
Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.
I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.
I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.
Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.
I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.
Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.
I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.
Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.
I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.
LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)
Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)
Topical Ks: 2
Non-Topical Ks: 4
I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.
I am a policymaker at heart. I will listen to and vote on kritical positions, but I am really looking at policy implications, even of the k. A kritical position ought to be one that you can consistently defend and be a meaningful argument that advances debate, not just a side argument you are running to see what happens. Education and debate on the current topic matter to me.
I think that topicality can be an important issue in the round, but it should only be run when there is ground to debate the violation - not merely as a time suck.
Disads and counterplans can play important roles in the round but should be meaningfully constructed and argued - not just read as a time suck to "see what might stick" (and counterplans need to be competitive).
I listen to arguments and to evidence - I am looking at the debate and argumentation, not just who can read the most/fastest. If you run it, you should be able to explain it, apply it, analyze it, and defend it.
Speed is fine as long as it's clear.
I debated PF for 3 years at Dulles High School and graduated in 2021.
Above all, make debate a safe and educational space for each other. Don't be sexist/ableist/racist/etc, respect pronouns, and use content warnings. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me (firstname.lastname@example.org) if you ever feel unsafe in round. If there are any violations in the round that hurt/exclude anyone, I will intervene as necessary.
I try to be a tabula rasa judge and I'm generally tech > truth! Your best bet is to treat me like a flay judge. Write my ballot for me (tell me what arguments to prioritize, why I should vote for you, etc.) because I want to minimize judge intervention as much as possible or else we will both be sad :((
I have little experience with progressive arguments and I much prefer substance debates (see the flay judge comment), but I do not believe it is my role as a judge to tell you what you can or cannot read, although I do have preferences that raise/lower my threshold for responses.
Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions before the round.
Just be cool and have fun! I'll try to adapt to what makes you feel most comfortable.
Pronouns: she/her Email: email@example.com (please put me on the email chain, or whatever method of sharing evidence)
I have lots of high school policy experience and a bit of experience in NFA-LD.
- I do not enjoy K debate, but will definitely listen to it if that's your thing. Just please explain thoroughly, you should be able to explain every aspect of the K before you're debating it.
- I do not like long grace periods, or 'off the clock' road maps. Give me a short order before your speech, but leave your arguments for when the clock is running.
- I'm okay with speed as long as everyone in the round is
- I'm okay with open cross as long as one person is not dominating
Overall, I'm not picky. Just please be kind to one another, show respect, and speak well.
I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for two years. I am a junior at Vanderbilt University.
I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. Because of this, I am not too familiar with theory and Ks. I am open to hearing these arguments, but I won't be the best at evaluating these types of arguments.
Add me to the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you spread, send a speech doc.
In terms of the round, here are a few things that I want to see:
1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.
2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.
3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.
4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.
5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.
6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.
7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.
How I vote:
If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.
If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.
Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.
If you have any additional questions, let me know.
My name is Atul Kapoor. I am a parent judge with a solid amount of experience. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace that I can follow. I will do my best to judge only off what I am given in the round, so please do the work for me and don't make me have to intervene. Please add me to the email chain at email@example.com.
I will do my best to disclose my decision when I am allowed to, and will leave feedback on the ballot. Above all, remember to have fun and be respectful to your opponents!
Making me laugh is always appreciated.
Best of luck to all debaters!
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 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
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 (email@example.com). 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org). 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) +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 (email@example.com)
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!
Things to keep in mind
-Prioritize clear signposting
-Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important (Throughout the round)
-Don't be rude or have offensive arguments
- I'm a little rusty with flowing
-I think the best debate round is one where your arguments are clear, your opponents have a reasonable amount of time to respond, and by the end, everyone in the room learns a little more about the topic. That’s why I don’t appreciate, for instance, spamming six turns and then telling me to vote off of the one they drop. I saw this on another paradigm so I stole it lol (Shoutout to Kate Selig)
-If you have any more questions you can ask me before the round!
Go as fast as you want IF your opponents are ok with speed. I will have no issue about clearing you if it is unclear/too fast and I will not vote on arguments that I didn't get on my flow.
Please have cut cards ready. Two minutes to find evidence, then it's dropped.
The quality of your debate will be judged on presenting the topic as the topic (Topicality). Throwing in racism as an argument for something that doesn't even relate just because you like to argue about that thing, doesn't bode well for your technique.
Weighing tells me what the most important argument is. I will look first to whichever argument is weighed the best. At that point, I look to who links into it. Terminal defense takes out the link - even if you win weighing, you still need to win your link. Weighing is not the end all be all of debate. If one team wins weighing but concedes defense, and the other team loses weighing but actually wins their link, I will vote for the second team, as that's the only team with offense on the flow. Have Fun :)
I am a traditional judge (don’t spread). I encourage you to use Value clash and weighing frequently. Stats and evidence is needed to support your arguments (my coach taught stats)- don’t just state them in your constructive. Your arguments that are extreme (war, extinction,racist, etc) need to be legitimatized. I don’t just buy the extreme arguments unless you prove they’re probable. Philosophical arguments aren’t as compelling without data. Use pathos too, it helps. Furthermore, my decision is made based on the Rebuttal. That’s what the focus of the debate should be. If you want me to focus on a point, say it in the rebuttal for it to factor into my decision. The Neg constructive is also the first neg rebuttal. Also, extend evidence. I admire weighing. Don’t just say your argument is better. Place your argument and your opponent’s on a scale, show me how your are comparatively better. Watch hot words in resolution like “on balance” or “just”. Advance the debate, evolve arguments to respond to what’s being said. Speaker points and speaking ability is a big help and your speaker points will be given accurately. Also, be polite! Use your cx to clarify, poke holes, and expose. Finally, keep your time and remember your prep. JUST BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION SAYS OUGHT DOESN’T, IN THE SLIGHTEST, MEAN YOUR VALUE NEEDS TO BE MORALITY!! Your value needs to match the content of your case.
For PF, keep it as the event was intended, which is less CX and more general debate. Speed should allow even a novice debate participant to keep up, but does not need to be as slow as a general speaking event. Make sure that you stay civil, as debate in general is intended to make sure that you are learning civil discourse and not just how to argue with someone.
please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Colleyville Heritage HS '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit), (some experience in WSD and LD)
University of Oklahoma '24: currently doing ~policy~
do whatever you want, i vote on the flow. your barrier to speed is your opponent (if they can’t handle it don’t do it). please warrant and weigh your arg and terminalize your impacts — if you do this you will most likely win. 2nd rebuttal should frontline, if they don’t defense is sticky in 1st summary. if it’s in final it needs to be in summary. have good evidence ethics.
come in pre flowed and send the email chain at the start time
for roadmaps: just tell me which piece of paper to have on top
welcome to my paradigm:
*before your speech, pls just tell me what piece of paper to start on and I'll follow you from there
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
(please weigh. please, please, please weigh)
- 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)
- speech doc/email chain should be sent at the start time of the round (or earlier, just not later)
- signpost, I want to write down all of your wonderful arguments (in the right places)
- speed: i don't care how fast you go, know your opponent (if they can't handle the speed -- don't go fast, if they don't have experience flowing off speech docs, this isn't the round for them to learn), if you're going to go sicko mode, give me a doc, otherwise, I flow on paper if I'm not writing stuff down, slow down
how to get more speaks:
+1 speaker points if you create an email chain AND USE IT PROPERLY ie. send all cut cards before every speech, (send an edited version after if you do something different), analytics are a good thing to send too but I'll still give you the extra speaks
- quality > quantity
- tech > truth
- default util
- I don't like calling for ev. you should be doing the ev analysis yourselves, ie. compare the ev between speeches then say it in the speech (I won't vote on it if it's not on the flow)
- 1st rebuttal shouldn't be doing case extensions (unless it's an ov, fw, or weighing you want flowed on your case), i already got the args from case, it's just repetitive
- 2nd rebuttal: pls frontline offense
- if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense is not sticky
- if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, defense is sticky
- please weigh (pls, pls, pls)
- 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
- start whenever y'all are ready, don't wait on me
- yes we can skip grand cross (#abolishgrandcross) (you can exchange it for 1 minute of prep, not each, it's a trade off)
*new section coming soon
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)
evidence ethics (10 minute version) (katelynne's version)
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)
https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/HS-Unified-Manual-2019-2020.pdf (command f "7.1")
- 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
Other people I try to judge like/influenced my debate style:
debate bestie- https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=100821
current coach- https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6406
TL;DR: warrant, collapse, implicate, weigh, extend consistently and don't be offensive/rude. Add me to the email chain: Alina.email@example.com
Go as fast as you want, and I’ll flow it. If you’re unclear, I’ll say clear twice and then put my pen down. After that, what I can follow is entirely based on your clarity.
Feel free to read them. That said, these arguments don’t typically function well in PF due to time constraints. So, I do prefer substance in PF. If you do debate progressively, note that crossfire and flex prep serves as accountability on your advocacy. My default is reasonability. If you want me to approach these args from a different standpoint, tell me.
Feel free to read arguments about any of the -isms. But, make sure in the process, you’re not otherizing. For example, if you are not a Muslim woman who identifies with the LGBT+ community, don’t read arguments about it. Also, if you are reading any arguments concerning sexual harassment/assault/suicide/etc., I expect a trigger warning BEFORE the round.
I have a high threshold for extensions. I expect you to extend the internal links to the argument as well as the impact. In other words, just tell me how you get from point A to C before you extend the impact. If you don’t, I’ll still evaluate the arg but I’ll be less inclined to vote for it.
Defense is sticky until it’s frontlined
respond to offensive responses ie turns and terminal defense before you access weighing in the second rebuttal
Tell me WHY the extended argument matters more than your opponents. If your opponents give me a different mechanism than you to prefer their argument, explain why your mechanism should be evaluated first (metaweighing).
Don’t introduce new weighing in second FF unless your opponents made a critical weighing concession in GCX. The only other exception to that rule is when neither team has weighed up until the second FF.
I try not to intervene as much as possible. If there’s no offense in the round and its a policy-oriented topic, I’ll default neg aka the status quo. If it's not a policy-oriented topic, I'll default towards what's most probable.
I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. If the evidence is miscut, I won’t evaluate it and I will penalize your speaks for it.
TECH > TRUTH
If you didn't say it in the round, don't expect me to evaluate it regardless of how "true" the argument may be. That said, use common sense and have good judgement. If you say something incorrect, it won't influence my decision, but I will call you out after the round.
The link to an argument matters but if you don't tell me HOW it fits in the round, I won't know what to do with it. So, tell me what argument serves as turns/terminal defense, why, and what that means for you/your opponents in the round.
I am a parent judge and have judged a few tournaments this year.
I would highly prefer that you speak clearly than quickly. I like when teams use a structured framework for their arguments. I will vote for the team that best responds to the other team's arguments while at the same time clarifying their own arguments.
Comparison and direct weighing of arguments will make it much easier to make my decision. With that being said, please refrain from using too much technical jargon without being able to explain it first.
Good luck to all teams!