John C Stennis Novice Tournament
2021 — NSDA Campus, MS/US
DEBATE Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideBio:
Hello, my name is Noah Amidon, and I'm a '27 at Dartmouth College where I am a member of the Model UN team, however, I competed in Speech & Debate throughout high school. Throughout my high school career, I competed primarily in PF & Congress (amassing a Congress State Runner-up, 2 Public Forum State Runner-ups, 1 Public Forum State Championship, and 1 Public Forum National Runner-up). I also competed in a variety of speech events, however often with little success.
General Debate Notes:
Please do not go more than 15 seconds over time, it is unfair to your opponents. Once you hit the end of your allotted time I will hold up my timer to indicate that I am no longer listening to what you are saying. If necessary I will read cards after the round if there is any argument about the contents of a card. I am able to handle some speed, however, if you are going too fast for me to understand you then I will not be able to vote for your side; and I will not say CLEAR, it's your job to communicate to the judge effectively. Finally, be cordial and respectful, and do not attack anyone's character or personal judgment of morality.
PF:
I will vote primarily on argumentation and the carrying of arguments throughout the round. If an argument is not furthered into Rebuttal and Summary, I will forget about it and drop it. While I am listening to the cross, anything brought up must be furthered in a speech. Remember this is supposed to be fun, so just relax and speak clearly. I vote almost entirely off of summary and final focus, so make sure that these are very good and concise so that you can make your entire point across. Finally, and most importantly I firmly believe in TECH>TRUTH meaning that I will take anything said in the round as fact unless it is thoroughly rebutted by the other side, this is a common mistake made in debate rounds where people just assume the judge understands what is actually fact, however, it is not my job to fact check every card introduced (Ex. your opponent says the sky is green, I will assume the sky is green until you point out otherwise).
Congress:
In Congress, I judge primarily off of participation in the round combined with your quality of speeches. Additionally, I don't want to hear re-hash when watching your debate, so please don't repeat arguments that another congressperson has made. I hate gamesmanship more than anything in Congress (if you don't know what I mean by that, then you're already on the right track), so don't do it. PO is automatically ranked 4th on my ballot, if speakers are lacking then that can move up, if the PO does a poor job that will move down. I'm fairly knowledgeable on parliamentary procedure, so stick to the book.
Policy:
I understand the purpose of the Affirmative to propose a plan in line with the resolution, and the negative to prove why that plan is not the best way forward. The words coming out of the debaters' mouths are the only things that will be considered in this round, the judge should not be expected to read to understand argumentation. I am willing to consider k's and other theory tools as long as they pertain to the resolution at hand and prove why on balance the plan submitted by the Affirmative or Negative argumentation is faulty, if they do not accomplish that then they are seen as irrelevant in the scope of this debate. Also, if I don't know what's going on, the team that confused me the most gets the L :).
Interp Events:
I believe that your job is to keep me entertained throughout your performance, if you fail to do that; you fail to win my ballot. If there are different characters, make sure that they are distinct so that I (your judge) have to do the least amount of work possible to follow. Also, in any binder events be sure that you are making eye contact as well as limiting movement below the waist, however, that doesn't go without saying that blocking above the waist is still extremely important to a winning performance.
Oratory Events:
If you are able to keep me entranced throughout your presentation you will get 50 speaks and will go on to win high rankings. In extemporaneous I will fact-check you if your sources seem fishy/too good to be true, and the easiest way to get a 6 on my ballot is to make things up.
LD:
I was never an LD debater, however, I will judge the round through the lenses of the presented value/criterion so make sure that those are punctual. If I forget your value/criterion I will default to your opponent's, so be sure that you are consistently reminding me how to value the round. For negation speakers, if your definitions are similar to your opponents, just accept them; if your value/criterion are similar, then just show me how you win under your opponent's. Doing that will demonstrate skill as a debater to adapt, which is something that I value extremely highly in a round.
If there are any questions regarding a round, ballot, or this paradigm please email me at noah.j.amidon.27@dartmouth.edu
P.S.
There's nothing that gets on my nerves more than walking into a round and students asking for me to tell them my paradigm, that's why it's here on tabroom.
trad circuit debate is preferred :) please use all of your prep time! i really like cross-ex and crossfires. be nice and civil, ignorant behavior = instant loss. if you're neg please actually have impacts, don't just attack aff. feel free to ask questions (aanderson4560@gmail.com)
Updated 12/23
Hello! I'm a freshman at Yale that competes with the YDA in ADPA and BP formats. I also did four years of high school debate, competing in PF and LD predominantly. If you want to contact me with questions or if there is an email chain, add me at william.berry@yale.edu
tl;dr: be better than your opponent and don't run bad arguments and I'll give you the W.
General (for all debate events):
1 - I am generally ok with speed, but I do think an important part of this activity is effective communication. As long as there is clarity to your speech, I can deal with it to an extent. If you are intent on actually spreading for some reason, just let me know and give me a speech doc because past a certain point I will not understand you and thus not flow what you are saying.
2 - Make sure you give voters. Your last speech (regardless of event) needs to be a clear summarization on the key points of clash, and you need to tell me why you won them. I won't accept any new evidence or arguments in this speech. If you make my job easier as a judge with some key voting issues, that will be reflected in my evaluation.
3 - WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! As early as possible! I value engagement more than rebuttals piling on top of each other endlessly. Additionally, it's incredibly annoying to hear "my opponent dropped subpoint c of contention 4 so I win the round." No you haven't. You need to do the weighing and show me how you are winning on the remaining arguments.
4 - I don't flow cross examination. I'll watch but if you want something on the flow and in the RFD make sure you bring it up in a speech. Also if you say a funny and clever one liner in cross (you must make me laugh), then I'll give you one extra speaker point as a treat.
5 - Don't go massively over time. If it's like one conclusion sentence that's like 5 seconds over that's probably fine, but past that I'm not considering anything you're saying in my decision.
6 - If you mis-cut or clip evidence, get ready for this fat L.
7 - Obviously, be respectful of your opponents and conduct yourself with a level of decorum. I won't tolerate bullying or ad-hom attacks in or out of the debate.
Lincoln Douglas:
1 - Style: I only competed on a lay circuit, so while I am familiar with progressive styles of argumentation (Theory, Ks, CPs, etc.), I don't have tons of experience running them myself. I don't think LD should be one person policy, so therefore I don't love most of these types of arguments, but I'll listen to them if you're at a TOC bid tournament or something since it's like a community norm or whatever.
2- Framework: The framework debate is key. I love to hear some good clash on the value and criterion. Definitionally, LD is a moral debate, so values like "morality" strike me as uncreative. If I have another option, chances are I'm adopting a different value. Other than that, I'll listen to just about any framework that makes sense. This means your framework needs warrants, just like any other argument. Finally, framework is not a voting issue. It's a lens through which I evaluate voting issues. If you tell me that framework is a voting issue, I will say "womp womp" to you in my RFD.
3 - Case Arguments: When it comes to contentions, I guess I am mildly truth>tech. I'm not going to drop the argument if you are running some nuclear war or other extinction impact, but my threshold for responses will be just a little lower. Contentions that link really well back into the framework will be rewarded.
4 - LARP: If you're not at a TOC bid tournament this doesn't apply to you. Below are my opinions on a few specific types of arguments but beyond those just make sure whatever you run is accessible enough.
a - Theory: Theory is thrown around way to much in LD these days, and often not done great. So if you could not have a bad theory debate, that would be really cool. Don't run like three shells just for the sake of it---my threshold for voting on theory is VERY high.
b - CPs: Counterplans are fine, just make sure to spell out the net benefit and how it is competitive. Just don't run a PIC. Those are low IQ. I don't care take the L. Also, "perm do both" is never a real response to a CP. Explain yourself. Basically, assume nothing, don't make blippy arguments, don't have a ridiculous advocacy, and you'll be fine.
c - Ks: Basically, make sure you explain your arguments well. I do like to learn things, so if you're able to make it interesting and not yell some obscure philosophy at me then your likelihood of winning will go up.
d - idek what this is but I don't like it when people pull up with these random cards with just sentence fragments or words highlighted and then claim that they "spike" out the opponent's case like what is that? These are not real arguments.
Public Forum:
There isn't really all that much PF-specific stuff, as most of it applies to all debate events, but there are a few things.
1 - Don't run prog arguments in PF.
2 - Make sure you extend more than "last name, year." When you reference evidence, refer to it so that I remember what it says and why it is relevant at that point in the debate.
3 - CHOOSE. In Summary and FF you will have to choose. Collapse the (probably) 2-3 voting issues for me well. Also if it's not in summary, don't try to pull it back up in FF.
4 - I don't have a big preference on how you call for cards, but if you do call for one, I will expect you to bring it up in some capacity. If you don't, I will assume the evidence is 100% legit.
Those are all of my major comments on how I judge. I am always happy to answer any questions before the round or via email. Have fun and see you in round!
Hey y’all! My name is Fikir Beyene (she/her) and this is my fourth year in speech and debate. I’ve competed in various events including PF, Congress, and Extemp. As a judge, my final decisions on every round come down to unique issues or moments of excellence, but here are some general things I take into consideration:
- I try my best to enter each round with an open mind, so even if one team’s argument may not be true or “correct,” if the other team doesn’t rebut it properly, I will weigh it as part of my decision
- Do not spread. A slightly quicker pace than your normal speaking speed is okay, but I value well-articulated arguments almost as much as I value strong argumentation.
- If you are blatantly disrespectful or discriminatory to your opponents, I will drop you.
- Please make sure to signpost to make your speech easy to follow.
- I will flow until you go more than 10 seconds over time (in debate). If I hold my fist up and you keep talking (beyond finishing your statement), I will not take any of the extra evidence/arguments presented during that time into account.
- In interp events and declamation, I will most highly rank those who display a mastery of the piece (very little to no pauses to recall information), include well-incorporated transitions and movements, and perform with unforced emotion.
- In impromptu, I’m looking for logical argumentation, cohesive speeches, and an engaging, effective delivery.
- In extemp, I will most highly rank those who cite multiple, strong pieces of evidence, present well-developed arguments, and effectively infuse humor and anecdotes into their speeches.
If you have any questions about your ballots or any of the events, feel free to email me at bfikir2005@gmail.com. Good luck!
I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.
In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.
For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.
I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.
I have experience in LD, PF, and congress.
In debate:
Make sure you have a rebuttal to each of your opponent's arguments.
Be clear and try to signpost.
Practice decorum and be nice to each other.
I won't flow if I can't understand understand you, but reasonable speed is okay.
I will flow every moment of the debate and make my final decision on whose arguments still stand and have the largest scale and most practical impacts.
For speech:
Make sure your speech flows, and speak clearly and confidently.
I debated all of my years in high school, and one year in college. I'm familiar with everything in LD, PF, World Schools, Big Questions, and Policy. So, feel free to run pretty much anything. There aren't any particular judging ideas that I adhere to. I judge largely based on the flow and care a lot about how the debate is framed. I'm perfectly fine with kritiks, or any other techy debate, as it were. With that said, if you want to run that, slow down a bit so that I understand what the core of your arguments are whenever going over any kind of metadebate. I'm not a very difficult judge to please, and I'm open to pretty much whatever you want to argue. Win my ballot by telling me why I ought to give it to you.
I am a sophomore at Harvard who competed for 4 years in high school. Most of my national experience is in congress, so I prefer traditional arguments, but I am open to all styles. If you choose circuit debate styles, you should know that I am likely unfamiliar with them, and I may need an explanation. I am very familiar with PFD and LD. If you have any questions at all, ask me before the round starts. I am willing to answer any questions about my judging. If you have any questions about my RFD, email me at hanselasri@gmail.com after the tournament is over.
PFD
- I vote off of CBA unless a team tells me otherwise. If you dislike your opponents framework, then argue against it. If you do not argue against it, I will default to that framework.
- I will call evidence that is crucial to the round or seems too good to be true.
- Speak at a moderate pace: it's best for all of us.
- Use tag-lines, or I will get confused.
LD
- Whoever wins the value-criterion debate determines how I will vote. This means that if you lose the VC debate I will use your opponents framework to vote. I recommend showing how you win both your own and your opponents VC.
- I will call evidence that is crucial to the round or seems too good to be true.
- Speak at a moderate pace: it's best for all of us.
- Use tag-lines, or I will get confused.
CON:
- I know a lot about congress, my senior year I was national runner-up in the House at NSDA, so I absolutely love congress
- Please study the three types of congress speeches: constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization.
- A good questioner sometimes has to interrupt, but there is a fine line between making your point and acting impolite (on the inverse side of this, if someone is rudely interrupting don't be rude back it just makes both of you look bad; if instead you act politely it really makes the questioner look bad and makes you look solid)
- I will call your sources if they seem fishy.
- Please tell me the location of the source, author, author's credentials, and date (this is a good habit to get into; judges at the national level love this)
- Please explain your impacts and quantify if possible.
- If you are on the affirmative, and you ask the question "what is the net harm in passing" you are not making a good argument. Congress doesn't pass bills because they aren't bad, they (try to) pass good bills. Congress defaults to passing no legislation if the legislation doesn't seem good, so you should advocate for your bill's merits on the aff not just disprove potential harms.
- POs, if I forget that you are a competitor until I am ranking that means that you did a good job. I also think POs can have fun as long as it doesn't detract from the chamber's integrity or seriousness and doesn't take up much time.
CX:
- If they call me to judge CX, know that I know very little.
- I use general debate rules to judge policy (see LD and PF).
I don't like to be confused - give me clear voting issues. If I am confused, I'll probably default to impacts / policy-maker or a simple morality question of what the right thing is to do. Speed is okay, and I'll try to follow, but speed with ridiculous breathing is obnoxious. Speed without any change in delivery for tag lines is hard to follow and hard to flow. And again, speed with an argument I'm not expecting and trying to learn is counterproductive. You can say "it's on the wiki" to your opponent all you want, but I don't feel any obligation as a judge to go read your case. Do the communicative work and teach me.
If you're going to run something unexpected (i.e. something a little squirrely or a blatantly non-topical or niche argument) or a kritik that I might not have heard before (well, any kritik, really), put in the work to explain it to me. I like learning stuff, otherwise I wouldn't spend my weekends doing this. What I don't like is being yelled and spread "at" about a philosophical premise I've never heard of before. Dumb it down for me a bit, take it a little slower, and I'll gladly come along for the lesson.
Some pet peeves (certainly not voting issues, but a paradigm is here for me to air all my complaints, right?)
- pointless off-time road maps, particularly in PF and LD. The only reason you'd need to give me this is if you're going in an unexpected order
- statements like "my opponent made a key mistake" - don't critique your opponent's performance for me. Convince me on the actual issues we're debating.My RFD may be dependent on a mistake made by a debater, but the voters you give me should be impacts in the context of the topic at hand.
- standing/sitting around while opponents "look for" evidence, saying that you'll start your prep time once they give you the evidence - always have your own evidence ready to go, and if your opponent doesn'thave it ready to go, ask them to give it to you ASAP, while you go ahead with prep time or your speech - if they are unable to produce the evidence, go after them in your next speech for that - DON'T hold up a round "waiting for evidence"
If you're reading this for Policy specifically: I didn't compete in Policy, but I've been coaching it off and on for a little over a decade, and I've judged frequently at NSDA and NCFL. That said, the circuit I coach in is fairly limited in terms of competition (like fewer than 10 teams at most tournaments), so my approach to policy tends to be pretty traditional, and I understand the event and the stock issues, but I'm not super familiar with kritiks or whatever passes for "progressive" arguments on "the circuit." (And if you can't tell by the quotation marks, as a coach in a small state focusing on just getting kids to competition, I'm a little disdainful of the elitism of "the circuit.") That said, I'm willing to listen to anything and willing to vote on anything, but you need to do the work to explain and teach me. It may be harder to get my vote with a kritik or anything else outside the realm of typical stock issues if you don't clearly explain the impacts of your argument and give me a nice Aff/Neg world comparison.
If you're reading this for LD: I didn't compete in it. I've coached it off and on, though not as much as PF and Policy. I'm going to lean pretty traditional for LD, just given my limited background and the circuit my students compete in. That doesn't mean I won't vote on plans or kritiks, but you're going to have to convince me. My default mode approaching LD is that I should be focusing on a value and criterion debate supported by some straightforward contentions, and I'm going to need a little help doing the mental jump into plans or kritiks. I'd certainly rather hear a framework debate about the values presented in the round than a framework debate about whether or not LD should allow plans, but I'll reluctantly follow along with whatever (cross apply my notes above for Policy, I guess.)
If you're reading this for Public Forum: I've coached it quite a bit, including teams that have broken at NSDA and won moderately large regional tournaments. I've also judged at nationals and major regional tournaments. I strongly object to the idea of paradigms in Public Forum debate. Access for students is a broadly discussed issue in Speech & Debate, but we need to remember that access for judges, especially volunteers, is just as important. Demanding paradigms in a debate event meant by design to be accessible to the public is, in my humble opinion, the wrong way to approach this event. I'm not exactly a "lay judge," but you should approach me in a public forum round, for the most part, as if I were a lay judge. Be organized and clear. Don't spread. Don't play games, especially when it comes to evidence and prep time. Give clear voters and an easy-to-understand Pro world vs. Con world layout.
At the top, I would greatly prefer if you sent me case docs so I could follow along during round and easily reference arguments and specific cards at my leisure. Sending thosesusom.hait@gmail.comas early as you can before round it would be optimal. Outside of that, do include me in the email chain if one is made.
Throughout High School I competed primarily in PF on the national circuit. I went to NSDA twice in PF, was a State Champion in the event, and competed in multiple nat circuit tournaments.
Despite this, I don't really like theory and arguments of this nature very much. If you explain it well enough and make me interested I might vote on theory, but don't hold out too much hope. You stand a much better chance of winning if you stick to relevant on case arguments.
I have a pretty high tolerance for speed, but you need to make sure you're clear if you're going to speak at a quicker pace.
I also want to see frontlining occur in the right speeches. (this primarily means 2nd team rebuttal addressing the 1st team rebuttal and not waiting until summary to frontline) If you fail to address an argument at the right time and your opponent says you don't bring up a response, I'm gonna drop whatever argument was attacked without a second thought.
Most importantly, be civil when you debate. Don't try to harass your opponent, intentionally talk over them, or flex that you're some debate genius. Winning one debate round in high school isn't so big a deal where trying to fight the opponent in round. Debate is about discourse before anything else, so act in a way that best suits delivering knowledge.
For LD and Policy, most of the same things apply. Remember to be coherent with clear arguments.
I'm a graduate of Murrah High School in Jackson, Mississippi, and I've been participating in Speech and Debate for 4 and a half years. In that time period, I've qualified and participated in 3 NSDA National tournaments, 3 NCFL tournaments including placing Top 64 in World Schools in 2021, and Top 32 in World Schools in 2022. In my hayday, I was one of the top Lincoln-Douglas debaters in my circuit. I say this to say that I've heard a lot of different debate styles and arguments, and as a result, I'm comfortable with almost everything. However, I do have a couple of preferences:
1) Debate should be an educational experience (no discriminatory, hateful, or harmful language or arguments should be used, if they are, expect a loss). The goal should be to be polite and respectful of each other and at the end of the day, come out having learned something new.
2) Please no spreading. I have debated too many people that think spreading is ok in debate, it is not. Because debate is about communicating with the judge (which is me), the judge needs to be able to understand clearly what you are saying, and so should your opponent. If you spread, expect low speaks.
3) Debate preferences:
Lincoln-Douglas: I am definitely a more traditional LD judge, so moral and philosophical arguments sit very well with me. However I've both debated against and debated with K's, picks, and tricks. I understand them, but I will say one thing, if you run them, ensure that you do two things: the first should be to help your opponent understand and engage with that argument. The second should be to know that argument yourself.
For LD
I'd like to see a good framework debate. Any sort of minor dismissal like, "my opponent's framework falls under the domain of mine." Unless it does of course, but it probably doesn't. Try to avoid fw like "structural violence" too silly for my tastes. Never liked it and it was never very good.
Give voters in your final speech. If your opponent does and you don't, not good for you...
Look at the judge during cx. If you don't, you'll get fewer speaker points.
Time yourself PLEASE.
He/Him
hartjefferson10@gmail.com
I am the Director of Forensics and an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication in the Department of Writing & Rhetoric at the University of Mississippi. I have a PhD and MA in Communication Studies from the University of Kansas.
I currently coach British Parliamentary debate but my background is in policy debate.
From 2014 to 2021 I was an assistant coach at the University of Kansas.
I competed at Wayne State University from 2009 to 2014.
I debated in high school for Dexter High School in Michigan.
Put me on the email chain, please. jacob.justice.debate at gmail.
Regardless of format (policy, PF, LD, BP, etc.) or style (policy, critique, etc.) I want to see complete and supported arguments, engagement with the arguments of your opponent, and judge instruction about how to prioritize and weigh various arguments.
The following stuff still applies.
*October 2020 Update*
This past Spring I finished up my PhD at the University of Kansas. I am now a public speaking instructor at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. I will be judging sporadically for Kansas during the 2020-2021 season.
What does this mean?
Don't assume I have high familiarity with the nitty-gritty of the current topic. I coached/judged on the high school military presence topic (2010-2011) and coached/judged extensively on the college military presence topic (2015-2016), so I am familiar with the broad strokes of the current college topic, but the latest and spiciest arguments and acronyms might be unfamiliar to me.
The Wayne State tournament will also be my first time judging an online tournament; although I did judge many online debates at the 2020 Jayhawk Debate Institute and have taught online many times as well. I just wanted to provide a fair warning that you can't rule out a "boomer technology moment" with me in the back of the room as I learn the ropes of this strange new world of online debating.
With these updates out of the way, I think everything below applies.
I always do my best to judge the debate in front of me without letting my own biases creep in. But I (or any other judge) would be lying if I told you I don't have certain preferences: these preferences are spelled out pretty well below.
One additional comment: I find that the most difficult rounds to resolve often involve debates that are occurring on two different registers. A 1AC with massive extinction impacts versus K links about knowledge production or ontology. Or a 1AC about anti-blackness or psychic violence versus a T argument about fairness/education. When debaters' impacts operate on such different levels, it can be difficult to resolve the debate without debaters explicitly telling me what types of impacts to prioritize.
*Previous Philosophy*
First things first:
1) Do what you're best at. As a judge, I should adapt to you and not the other way around.
2) Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication. Any argument that contains a claim, data (this doesn't mean carded), warrant and implication is fair game for my ballot.
3) A dropped argument is almost always a true argument. The most common exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #2, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication. Tech creates "truth". What is "truth" is contingent on arguments made (and won). I often find myself voting for arguments that I disagree with or find silly when one side executes better.
4) This is a communication activity, so clarity is important to me. I like being able to hear the text of evidence as it is being read. Enunciate! Don't talk into your laptop or read like a robot.
General Notes:
Context always matters. Controlling the contextual framing almost always requires hard pre-round work, and usually wins the round. I value teams that demonstrate robust knowledge of their arguments and the topic.
Clash matters a lot to me. I'm not a good judge for teams whose strategy is built around avoiding a debate. This is true regardless of which side of the K/policy spectrum any given argument falls on.
Impact comparisons are critical, no matter what flavor of debate you engage in. Does negative flexibility outweigh 2AC strategy skew? Are the 1AC’s methodological assumptions a prior question to its pragmatic implications? Does a long term warming impact outweigh a quick nuclear war scenario? In a close round, the team that provides the clearest and most well-explained answer to questions like those usually wins my ballot.
In general, it is better to a develop a small number of arguments in an in-depth manner than to develop a large number of arguments in a shallow manner, although there are certainly exceptions to this rule. Selective rebuttals are typically the most effective. That being said, I recognize the strategic benefit of the 1AR pursuing a handful of lines of argument to give the 2AR flexibility to pick-and-choose.
After judging a year of college debates, I think my biggest pet peeve is vagueness -- be that a vague plan, vague CP, or vague alt. Being clear and detailed is helpful to me as a judge.
Framework:
See: my previous thoughts about clash.
Teams should defend an example of the resolution. I don't think being topical is an unreasonable expectation when the resolution does not force you to take a conservative or repugnant action (i.e., when legalizing pot or closing military bases is topical). I think fairness is an impact and will vote on it if articulated and debated well.
When answering T with a "K Aff," I think it is important for the AFF team to advance a limiting counter-interpretation of some kind. I am more likely to be persuaded by "we don't make the topic unworkably large" than "destroying debate good."
It is important for affirmatives to demonstrate that their advocacy is germane to the controversy of the resolution and contestable. Affirmatives should explain what type of ground they make available to the negative, and not just by referring to random author names. In other words, it's much more helpful when the affirmative frames the ground debate in terms of: "our affirmative relies on *X* assumption, which *Y* literature base writes evidence refuting" rather than just saying "you can read Baudrillard, Bataille, etc."
Teams should articulate a clear vision of what debate would look like under their interpretation. Ideally, teams should present a clear answer to questions like: "what is the purpose of debate?" Is it a game? A site for activism? Somewhere in between?
I don't think reading topicality is a means to evade clash with the substance of an affirmative -- in many instances it calls core assumptions of the affirmative into question.
Interacting with your opponents' argument is critical. It's important to isolate a clear impact to your argument and explain how it accesses/turns your opponents. Often times I find these debates to be irreconcilable because the arguments advanced by either side have disparate premises. It can be helpful to not conflate procedural justifications for topicality with normative ones, though the internal links to these things often become messy.
I am disinclined to view debate as a role-playing exercise.
Topicality:
I will definitely vote on it, and I have done so often. I am not a good judge for "should = past tense of shall", "reduce =/= eliminate" and other contrived interpretations negatives read against obviously topical affs. For instance, it will be difficult to convince me that an affirmative which removes the Cuban embargo is untopical, absent a massive technical error. That being said I am willing to vote on T, given that an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are well articulated. Affirmatives should always make and extend a counter-interpretation.
Theory –
It will be tough to persuade me that two conditional advocacies is egregious and unmanageable for the 2AC. Beyond two conditional advocacies is pushing your luck if you are the negative team, especially with multiple "kickable" planks involved.
Basically every other theoretical objection is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.
I haven't formed a solid opinion on "judge kicking" CPs, but since the aff has the burden of proof in most theory debates, I think I am comfortable putting the burden on the aff to prove why the 2NR can't simultaneously go for a CP and the SQ.
-Consult/Condition/Delay CPs – I tend to consider these types of CPs uncompetitive, and am thus receptive to perm arguments. That being said, there is a big difference in my mind between “Consult Japan on the plan” and well-evidenced CP’s that are comparative between doing the plan unconditionally, and using the plan as leverage. The latter brand of condition CP’s are few and far between.
Critiques:
Given my disposition to view things within a cost-benefit paradigm, I am likely to frame the critique as a disad / counterplan. This basic calculus will be different based upon the framework arguments advanced by the negative regarding ontology, epistemology, method, etc.
When indicting an affirmative's knowledge production or epistemology is imperative that you reference quotes or phrases from the 1AC which you think are flawed. It is also imperative that affirmatives defend the truth value of their 1AC's claims from these types of epistemological attacks.
I feel most comfortable in K rounds that involve a lot of interaction with the plan, the advantages, or explicit 1AC claims. There should be a coherent link, impact, and alternative. Don't assume I know what you are talking about.
Affs are best answering the K at the alt and impact level as the neg will almost certainly win a link. Articulating why the alt doesn't solve the case and why the case outweighs the K impacts is usually the best strategy. I am also a fan of the impact turn.
K links should ideally establish that the 1AC/plan is undesirable, not merely that it doesn't account for every foreseeable harm. I.E. links that say: "the plan makes racism worse" are more persuasive than "the plan does not address other instances of racism."
Hello! My name is Anna (she/they). I was a high school debater for 4 years competing in primarily PF, Worlds, Poetry, and Informative Speaking. I have also experienced and have knowledge in Congressional Debate, Prose, and Duo Interpretation.
My goal as your judge is to make sure that you feel comfortable, are able to take away something important from the round, and have fun! As such, feel free to contact me about any questions you have through my email (annakang613@gmail.com).
Now, here is some important judging criteria for the following events:
Overall Comments for Debate:
- Please speak a bit slower. This allows me to write as much as you want me to judge. Refrain from spreading if you can, and I'll note in the round if you are speaking too fast for me to write. I want to at least get as much as I can to properly judge.
- If you go overtime in your speech, know that I won't flow from that point. Additionally, just know you are keeping yourself from ending the round earlier than you would be.
- (Just my own little pet peeve) I will want you all to refrain from saying, "my opponent made a mistake" or anything that sounds like you are directing comments to your opponents. I want you to focus on the arguments, not directing the mistakes to the opponent. This won't change any differences in points, but it might just be a little thorn on my side throughout the round.
PF:
This is a debate that needs evidence but most importantly elaboration and ability to translate that evidence to your argumentation. I don't want the debate to be based on spreading and ultimately getting confused on what the opponents are arguing. Make sure you are speaking clearly and clarifying your argumentation along the way to win the round. Here are some other things I want you to note:
- I need you to weigh. I am going to heavily emphasize on the fact that I want to see the summary speech be used to not only clear up some misunderstandings, but also be the key deciding factor of the weighing aspects of the round.
- Argumentation should be carried throughout the round. From rebuttal, to summary, and finally final focus. If I don't see that trend, then I can't carry your argument until the very end. Make sure to collapse when you need to, and plan accordingly so you don't get overwhelmed at the end. It makes it easier for me to judge as well.
- I will not be flowing cross. I will still listen in and see how you all act during that time, but I will only flow the content that was taken from that time if you bring it up in your other speeches.
- I will default to a cost/benefit analysis framework if none are given at the beginning of the round. Please make sure to provide argumentation as to why your framework should stand if you are going to provide one. If your opponents are able to adequately answer to it or negate the reason for why we need such a framework, then I won't consider it.
LD:
TBH, I sadly don't know much about this field. All I know is that you have to substantially provide evidence for your value and criterion with your contentions. Follow the comments above if I am your judge for LD, and I will do my best.
Congress:
If I ever judge this, just know that I want to see professionalism, funny remarks, and good speeches. I also really appreciate good questions, since this tells me you are paying attention.
Policy:
I don't know much about this debate form as much, but I will do my best to follow, so bear with me as I try my best. You guys have lots of time in comparison to other debate forms, but I understand the feel and need to fit more information during that time as well. Make the debate not as a speed-race for how many words you can get in, but I would like to see the arguments getting thrown back and forth and engaged with by both teams. Similar to my points in PF, I will judge most of the arguments based on those particular points made above.
Worlds:
If I ever judge this, I can provide more specific comments after round. Most importantly, I want to see teamwork and flowed argumentation throughout the 3 speeches. I love to see how future speeches will respond to the ones that happened earlier and provide answers to certain substantives. Clever remarks and team lines will also give extra points from me.
Overall Comments for Speech:
- Show how much you are passionate for your topic and event. This can differ from each event, but if I see that particular enthusiasm for the topic, you can definitely pull me in and keep me on my toes.
- Speak clearly
- I will provide hand signals and give you ones that I think are necessary for that particular event. If you have specific signals that you would like, feel free to ask me to do them! I have a phone timer for that reason :)
- If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before you begin!
Hi, I’m Neely! I use she/her pronouns. Please inform me of your preferred pronouns (if you’re comfortable) so I can address you properly. I competed in speech and debate for 4 years in a variety of events, primarily speech and debate events. I will not tolerate any kind of ad hominem arguments, hate speech, slurs, charged language, etc. Make sure your arguments are clear and understandable to all, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!
I'm a pretty chill judge and I have done PF, Policy, and LD. I have also done congress and worlds.
Tech>truth. To a degree I will only flow an arguement if you mention it, so if your opponent says something blatantly wrong you have to mention that it is blatantly wrong. Now if the argument is ridiculous and offensive I am very inclined to not flow it, but if you mention it I definitely won't.
PF: I think that being more conversational and not super technical is ok. I don't really want you to just throw cards at me instead if you explain your logic and then the link chain I will be happy. If you are going to just throw cards at me I will A: be unhappy and B: be inclined to ask for a ton of evidence which is something I don't really want to do and you probably don't want me to do. Also, make sure to extend everything you want to go for through final focus, or I cannot consider it.
Policy is really weird for me since for now I only judge novices, but the biggest thing for me is organization. Like I understand that for a lot of people this is a very daunting event, but also if you don't tagline any of your arguments I'm gonna have no clue where I am at or what I am flowing.
Also as a general note I would like everyone to disclose ev used in round to me even if you aren't sharing it between the other team.
Theory: I'd honestly rather not evaluate it, and you might not want me to evaluate it simply because I am not that experienced with it. Other than that if you do choose to run a theory argument please take the time to explain why you are running it and what particular action happened in round that caused you to run it.
K's: These are fine, but for the stuff that is a little more out there be sure to tagline well and explain your alt well.
Speaker Points are super arbitrary and I usually give pretty high points unless you're not that good at speaking.
Tapan.kotikalapudi@gmail.com
I debated Public Forum for four years in HS and attempted to compete in Prose for a semester during my Senior year.
Overarching things:
Truth > Tech: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are hypotheticals so I generally evaluate the round based on what's presented regardless of the truthfullness of the argument. Saying that, if you're gonna try to convince me that aliens exist or the Illuminati have my mind in a vat, you'd better have some pretty convincing evidence. Remember, the more realistic your argument, the more likely I am to value it more highly in the round.
Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.
Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.
Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.
Crossfire: I will NOT flow cross. Cross is a way for debaters to clarify arguments with each other, so arguments or ideas presented in cross must be extended throughout the rest of the debate. Don't use cross as an extra speech, use it for setup for later speeches.
Other things:
- When time stops, flowing stops. Speaking over the time limit will not add anything to the flow or factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; avoid spreading if possible
- If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. It is your job as a debater to present yourself in a clear manner to me, so if you speak to quickly, to a point where I cannot understand you, you will lose speaks and my flow won't contain all the arguments you mention.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense
- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
- Cross fire should be an exchange b/w the two debaters. I don't want long speeches in it.
- Star Wars references are greatly appreciated and will gain some clout with me.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask before we start the round/email me at dfroger1@go.olemiss.edu
Good luck and make the most of every round!
Update for TOC Digital 3: My background is in lay/traditional policy and it's been about a year since I've thought a lot about circuit debate/flowed spreading. I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but the less I understand, the more likely I'll make a mistake. If y'all would help me out by slowing down (especially for arguments that aren't in the doc) and taking more time to explain complex arguments and how they function in the round, I'd really appreciate it :D
Hello, I'm Jason. I competed for Madison Central in Mississippi (mostly PF, Policy, and speech; dabbled in World Schools, Congress, and LD). I do BP and APDA debate at Penn now.
My background is mostly in lay/traditional debate, but I did some national circuit PF and policy and think about debate in a more technical way. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!
First and foremost, do what you do, and I'll do my best to follow and give constructive feedback. We are all here to learn, so above all else, please respect your opponents, teammates, and judges. At the end of the day, it's a lot more important to be a good person than a great speaker/debater.
General:
1- Tell me what argument(s) you’re winning, why you’re winning them, and why winning those arguments means you win the debate. The same goes for dropped arguments. Being technically proficient is important, but smart overviews, organization, and judge instruction can shape how I view technical issues on the flow.
2- Be smart and adaptable. Cases that are strategically written, clever logical analysis to respond to unpredictable/unrealistic arguments, and comparative weighing of arguments beyond probability/magnitude/timeframe are all great.
3- Here’s a video that shows the speed I am comfortable with without a doc. Please start off slow and work your way up to speed.
4- Highly warranted evidence is great. If there's evidence-sharing, I won't read evidence to make my decision unless you tell me to or I think there's something fishy going on. I might read it for fun though.
5- Try to make the round accessible and educational for everyone involved. Complex or unorthodox arguments are fine, but make them in a way that your opponents can easily understand and don't be mean or shifty in cross if you're asked to explain them. But also, if you read an argument that you wouldn't usually read just to confuse your seemingly-less experienced opponents, I'll be very sad.
Public Forum:
1- PF speeches are super short. Your speaks will be amazing if the last two speeches focus on winning and implicating a few arguments, rather than going for everything.
2- 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.
3- An argument must have been in summary for it to be in final focus.
Lincoln-Douglas:
1- If the framework debate is clearly irrelevant (i.e. both debaters are staking the round on consequences) just concede to your opponent's framework and win under it.
2- If the values are different, I'll probably view the value and criterion as a single framework rather than two separate layers of the debate.
Policy:
1- I'm definitely more familiar with policy arguments than kritikal arguments. Seriously go for anything though (provided it isn't hateful), but the further something strays from what I'm familiar with, the more explanation I'll need to understand.
2- Pls slow down on taglines, analytics, and stuff you really want me to flow.
4- Honestly not super familiar with the K outside of Cap and Security. I like to learn though, so if that's your jam, just explain it well (especially how the K interacts with the aff) and I'll be happy to listen.
5- Same goes for K affs. Just be very clear on what your aff does and do impact calc vs framework. For what it's worth, I went for clash/skills impacts in 2NRs on framework, but am good for whatever.
6- I won't judge kick a counterplan in the 2NR unless I'm told to, and it wouldn't take much from the 2AR to convince me not to.
7- Probably not great for super techy competition/theory debates.
8- I'm not super comfortable adjudicating arguments about something that happened out-of-round.
9- The first lines of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words I put at the top of my RFD.
Other Events:
1- Be organized, be polished, and make me think.
2- Have fun!
I am a math teacher and speech and debate coach at Purvis High School in Purvis, MS. Our primary focus as a team is on speech and interp events, so my experience with debate events is rudimentary.
I judge LD debate, where I would prefer that debaters not spread. I judge primarily on the flow with an emphasis on value and criterion, but I do give a higher weight to presentation than do many debate judges. I feel that debate should not just be an exercise in logic and evidence (though that is the focus), but should also reflect the reality that the way in which information is presented affects its persuasiveness.
I am a PF debater who also has participated in Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Declamation.
For Debate events:
- Make sure to speak clearly and deliberately. Please refute & extend points in your later speeches - it really helps us decide who to win. Also, try to signpost (say which point you are refuting before you refute it).
- Please maintain decorum. I will drop you if you are rude.
- If an untrue point is brought up in the round, it is the responsibility of the other team to refute it. If this is not done, I will assume it is true for judging purposes, although I will critique any untrue arguments in the ballot.
For Speech events:
- Speak clearly and confidently.
For all events:
- Just relax! I know that's easier said than done but it will make your experience better. Also, remember to be respectful, and most importantly, have fun!
If you have any questions about the round, please feel free to reach out to my email: g.hayden.walker@gmail.com
Hello!
I have three great loves, Dolphins, Celine Dion, and Speech and Debate, and while a competitor I competed in in LD,PF, Congress, Policy, Informative Speaking, Extemporaneous Debate, Declamation, Poetry, Prose, Impromptu, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, POI and Pro Con Challenge
I would say my abilities were most notable in Congress which If it interests you any I was a 2 time NCFL Finalist, A Tournament of Champions Semi-Finalist and a 2 Time NSDA Finalist culminating in being the 2nd Place National Winner in Congress-House at the 2023 NSDA Nationals.
I think debate, especially, is something exciting and thus I love to be excited by debates that I watch, not bored to death, or worse; made upset and angry.
General Debate Stuff:
1) Make sense! This is pretty simple just make sure you have an argument that can be LOGICALLY followed by me at the very least. You do not need to make it a case accessible to a ten year old, but do not talk about crazy out of this world stuff unless you can CLEARLY link it to something sensible.
2) Do not go over time. I stop flowing/listening when your time is done so it really does nothing for you-like at all.
3) This should be pretty basic. Don't be rude/racist/sexist/homophobic/elitist. That last one is there because while the others are ones most(but sadly not all) debaters have down pack, elitism seems to seep out of some debates. Don't treat your opponent or their arguments like they are beneath you. Even if an argument is not as well thought out, don't call it ridiculous or something similar. Say it is illogical or does not fall into the resolution or etc. I do not expect you to explain why 2+2 does not equal 3 but also do not expect nor want nor will I be pleased if you are rude about the audacity of the argument or worse if you relate said argument to ad hominem attacks on your opponent.
LD Specific:
1) Values above ALL! This is Lincoln Douglas debate and as much as you may want to make it single person policy IT IS NOT. I do not care if you outline an effective cure to cancer in your case, if it does appeal to the value debate I will place VERY LITTLE weight on it. A debater with a lacking case that upholds his value through the round will ALWAYS win over a debater with an excellent case that loses on the value front. I have to vote by value and value criterion first.
2) Value Criterions matter! For some reason it is the hot new thing to free style it with only a value and have your VC either non existent or irrelevant but VCs matter ALOT. Values mean different things to different people and a VC (a good and relevant one) is the only way to solve this. Jack the Ripper's value of morality did not include preserving human life. Value Criterions tell me how to evaluate your value and that is insanely important.
3) I do not care about drops that are irrelevant. What I mean by this is, if you say "My opponent drops my Contention 3 Subpoint D, therefore I win on X argument", My question will be, does it matter. If all your subpoints in your contention 3 are about the benefits to dolphins and your opponent explains why your world harms dolphins I don't care that they do not cite your specific benefit. If dolphins are going to be hurt in your world what does it matter if your Subpoint D is that Dolphins need better ocean water, it still falls without your opponent attacking it directly. That being said, at all cost do not make drops but know that I will evaluate the measure of a drop to see if flowing the drop is actually worth it or if it even matters to the overall question at hand. Speaking of that....
4) Answer the ACTUAL resolution. The NSDA gives a topic for debate and that is what the debate should be centered around. Theory and any other thing you could think of to sidestep the debate DOES NOT MATTER. If you have a problem with the way debate works, whether it be disclosures or the structure of speaking times, take it up with the NSDA, the people who make the ACTUAL rules. And even if you do not run theory, if you make the ENTIRE debate about something frivolous I will be VERY unpleasant on your ballot. Debate about the topic, and as Miranda Priestly would say, that's all!
5) Truth>tech. I'll elaborate more in round if wanted. But basically I can’t reasonably be expected to evaluate an argument simply because you explained it better even if I blatantly know it’s false I am human after all- furthermore doing that gives great advantage to those who can L.A.R.P in a debate round over those who actually are using substantive and EVIDENCE BACKED TRUE contentions so being truth>Tech makes complete sense to me and while I respect others opinions and points of views I can’t for the life of me understand why in a Debate round of all things it would be the opposite for some judges
Congress Specific:
Ranking the Top 3 people in congress, then milling around trying to determine the order from 4th to 8th, is fairly Hard if you have a Good round.
POs- I don't want to think about you. If I go the full 2 hour+ session without thinking about your existence, that's a good thing. It means that you kept the session running efficiently without drawing attention to yourself and I will reward you greatly.
As a person who PO'd alot including at National Finals I have GREAT respect for PO's and I know how grueling it is being on constant go mode for hours on end. As such do not be afraid to PO for fear that you won't be noticed amongst the other "talented" speakers- For the VAST majority of rounds a PO is automatically in my top 3 from the start. But don't take that as your star call to run for PO. I expect ALOT from POs.
I would highly advise against running for PO if I'm your judge and you have any one of these qualities:
A) Look at me disease. I'm not impressed by fancy charts or speech or how firm and hostile you sound keeping "order". Your Job as PO is not to show off or make it clear "who's in charge", it's to facilitate the chamber. I don't need to be reminded you're there or to rank you or the hours that have passed, Congress is a lot of people fighting for tight time slots and every second wasted by your need to speak when you don't have to is time that could better spent.
B) Non superior understanding of the rules. If you have to ask the Parli about non tournament specific info/something already included in the NSDA Manual and Congress rules, don't expect very good rankings from me. For me that's like a speaking rep in student congress not understanding speeches or questioning--a main part of your job is knowing the rules better than anyone else in the chamber so it looks very embarassing when you do not.
C) A Weak stomach for conflict. I said in the A) point I don't like PO's being a show off at being tough-which is true. But appropiate toughness is not only warranted but a part of the job. Ideally we should never be at a point where a rulling is questioned but if it is, you better be right-and calmly but firmly explain why such as: (Rep X gave the 8th speech on the prev bill while Y gave the 6th therefore I was correct in calling on them based on Recency.) If you are correct KNOW why you are.
D) Value Speed over Accuarcy. Contrary to popular belief, efficency is not doing things the fastest way possible, it's doing things the fastest way possible CORRECTLY. If you are trying to move so fast that you have to stumble over yourself 4 times in questioning because you keep realizing that someone else is actually supposed to be called on--that's a problem. Even if you end up with the correct person in the end these moments damage your legitmacy and make me think and wonder about you (remember me thinking about you is a bad thing).
Even with these things know I am merciful, as I said, I have been in your shoes as PO and know how hard it is. I recognize these are HIGH expectations for a PO and that judging POs needs appropiate weighing. For example A PO in a 2 hour session is on the clock for 120 minutes, while a REP gets to show their talent for about maybe 8 minutes a piece plus some precudural and activity stuff. Therefore the percentage time of a PO doing what they need to be doing even with some errors will almost always be higher than most REPs. As such it's hard not to be in my top 6 as a PO(unless you're in a killer chamber like a break round at Nats which if that's the case you need to be on your A-game, those people are sharks and, I won't dock good speakers because of my fondness of POs).
Also- I track precedence and recency whether I'm the Parli or not, don't let me catch a slip you don't acknowledge because the chamber trusts you, I won't be happy.
Legislators should always---
1) Refer to your fellow legislators as Senator or Representative. I do not care which one, unless its a Congress Quals or the chamber type has been preset by the tournament, but you MUST use this title. And also, refer to the Presiding Officer as Mr./Madam Presiding Officer, or if neither of those Pronouns fit, Presiding Officer or the Chair is fine.
2) Question time is a time for questioning NOT AHA MOMENTS! Teeing up something for a later speech is fine SO LONG AS you are asking a legitimate question that either relates DIRECTLY to the speaker's speech or to a SPECIFIC part of the bill. For example "Why is Section 3's enforcement of the bill any different than HR.123 introduced in 2012" is an okay and quite frankly excellent question. But "How can you defend this bill when giving money to end cancer is more important" is a very bad question. Do not get me wrong, having a NEG speech about why giving money to end cancer would be a better use of funds is fine, but you are not utilizing questioning time to do it what its purpose is, to clarify issues posed SPECIFICALLY in either the bill/res or the speaker's speech. Also, being rude in Questioning is an automatic way to drop down to 8th (MAX) on my rankings. And while I prefer PO's who act like they are not even there, I expect some interference when questioning time becomes either too rowdy or ineffectual.
3) I, like most sane people, despise Rehash with a burning passion. Any speech after the first cycle of Aff and Neg that doesn't reference a previous question or speaker or at least attempt to answer questions of the debate at hand, will automatically get no higher than a 4. And a legislator who consistently makes these types of speeches in the round can look forward to a nice 8th place or lower depending on the rest of the chamber and how they debate. I don't care what stuck up, pretentious, policy/ld/pf kids say. Congress is a DEBATE EVENT. Actual debate should be taking place as such....
4) MOVE ON!! When debate is done, it is done. Congress is incredible to me because you have such an array of topics you are allowed to debate within the different legislation. If you're the 7th AFF speaker it better be for a VERY good reason. I don't mean the "i thought of something no one has said" good reason i mean the "everyone has been debating that this bill talks about giving Money to The Vatican when it very clearly talks about Togo" good reason.. RARELY do incredibly late speeches have anything new to say. I will be very impressed by Reps who choose to move to the previous questioning even over objections because they know as I do that there is NOTHING new to say. Your laundry list
"crystal" speech does not impress me in the slightest. And reps who fight the motion down for "equity" can expect not so great marks on their ballots for me. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. If you choose to keep the "debate" on a bill going solely so everyone can speak on it I will not be kind in your rankings ESPECIALLY if you break cycle. Breaking cycle means you have not, like is expected of Policy,LD,PF and congress DEBATE competitors researched and prepared to speak on both sides.
Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).
Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.
I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.
Contact:
yuandrew923@gmail.com
Public Forum:
- I've been doing PF for 2 years, so I'm relatively experienced.
- Try to compare your arguments with your opponents' so that it is easier for me to evaluate the round.
- I'll probably give you good speaks as long as you don't speak super fast or anything.
- Be nice :)
- Have fun!