Nano Nagle Classic and Nano Nagle RR
2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
PF Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
- Be confident (I may not understand everything you're saying so I'll assume that the more confident speakers are right)
- Convince me why you're right and why you are winning
- Be respectful of your opponents
- Be clear and concise with what you're saying - don't read me some random piece of evidence; I want an explanation about it, what it has to do with what you're saying, and where you got it from
- Be clear when you're speaking; You can speak at any pace but it needs to be comprehensible
Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.
I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)
Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.
Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.
(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)
^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea
Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.
Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.
Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.
Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.
Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.
Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.
RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.
K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.
Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.
Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.
Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.
Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!
disclaimers for preffing:
- i competed four years at archbishop mitty high school, policy for two years and parli for two years after, won chssa parli last year
- i'm cool with the common k's (cap, neolib, security, etc), as a debater i have experience with running antiblackness, orientalism and queer k's. im good with anything, but im probably not familiar with ur niche lit base so just explain it well. if you're a super high level k or theory debater however, consider preffing me low lol
- spread if you want, i'll say slow or clear if i need to
my judging preferences:
1. if u cause harm in the debate space ill drop u immediately
2. tech over truth unless you don't warrant
3. organize uq/l/il/mpx and signpost
4. impact everything out or it doesn't matter; if i'm judging parli, everything should be centered around your weighing mechanism
5. im down for friv theory, unless u make the debate completely inaccessible to your opponents
6. everyone gets a 29, make an atla/aot/jjk/shadow and bone reference and i'll give you a 30. speaks end up being arbitrary and ableist/sexist anyways so just have fun
7. stick around for feedback, i'll always try to disclose. email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you need anything else
Kempner '20 | Stanford '24
or just facebook message me
4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice
***Update for Zoom Tournaments: Slow down on authors and tags in all speeches. If you are worried about speed, I'll take speech docs and follow along. Clarity>>>
Updates as of Jan '22 topic
- FOR STRAKE RR OR ANY RR: I WILL NOT EVALUATE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION UNLESS IT IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE TOPIC, i.e don't read disclosure or paraphrase bc you didnt do any prep
- Far too many teams are sacrificing warrants in exchange for technical victories. To win you must fully extend your argument, i.e the uniqueness, link and impact, with the warrants on each of those levels.
- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)
- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here
- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip before and be ready to start by the time round 1 is over.
- Debate is a game so tech>truth
- Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
- I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
- give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
- defense isnt sticky
- Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
- if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
- absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics
- Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
- For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
- I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
- Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
- Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability
- Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
- case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
- do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
- Dont do "extend our link"
- for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
- please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
- this also goes for arguments that are conceded
- First summary
- Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
- Second summary
- This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
- Defense must also be extended
- Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
- Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
- I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me
- I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
- If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
- I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
- You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
- Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it
- there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate
- Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
- Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
- I will vote for one team and one team only
- I will evaluate theory
- Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
- Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
- if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
- Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
- I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
- I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.
- i will not evaluate K's with no link to the topic and tricks. I don't know how to evaluate this stuff and I also think these arguments are insanely exclusionary.
- K's with links to the topic are your best bet with me if you're gonna read these kinds of arguments
- at the end of the day, it's substance or you're scared. I think topical progressive arguments make a lot of sense and are good for the activity, reading stuff like the Good Samaritan paradox ain't it.
- Sam's Thoughts on progressive debate align really closely to mine, It's a long read but I think it definitely goes into a lot more detail than what I have here.
- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading
- This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices
- Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech
- From cara’s paradigm ““If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.”
- if you call "harv*rd" Stanford of the East, you get +0.5 speaker points (this has to be if you had evidence from that organization, it cant just be random)
- I agree generally with Nibhan, Nilay, Raj and Abhi when it comes to general views on debate (tech specifics are on my paradigm)
- im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
- if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important
I am not an experienced judge, but I have judged a few rounds in the past, so please try to be patient with me, without assuming that I am understanding everything that you are saying.
I would like the debaters to be always on time and respect the opponents. Because of the time limit, many time debaters tend to go over their points very quickly and in the process lose the attention of the judge. It is very important to be clear and crisp while speaking.
I would also like the debaters to make sure to outweigh at the end of the round and to make it clear why I should vote for them.
Coppell '21 | UT Dallas '25 | He/Him
Conflicts: Coppell (Former Debater: 2018-2021), Quarry Lane (Public Forum Coach: 2021-)
- **HIGHLY IMPORTANT** - Read the arguments you want and debate in your own style. The activity is supposed to be enjoyable, not one where you can't debate a certain way in front of a certain person. The more creative and fun you are in round, the higher likelihood you get higher speaks and everyone enjoys the round. My paradigm sets guidelines for the way I see rounds but by no means should hinder you from reading what you actually want to.
- Debate should be an educational and safe space - No violence of any kind towards anyone in the round will be tolerated and the round will be stopped if deemed unsafe for an individual in it.
- I'll try my best to adapt to you - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
- Cameras on at all times.
- Establish a method of evidence sharing before the round starts.
- If you get called out for stealing prep and you clearly are, speaks will be low. To avoid this - stay unmuted when a team is sending evidence over.
Public Forum Basics
- I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
- Extend the arguments themselves - the names of each author aren't required
- To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
- Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count, and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives either
- Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense it's conceded, and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
- Link turns need uniqueness responses to make them into a link turn and access the impact of the contention, otherwise it's just another contention with no impact
- Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter
- Dumping DA's in second rebuttal is can be made into a voting issue, but I don't have a predisposition on this issue
PF Summary/Final Focus
- Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - sticky defense doesn't exist
- Extend and weigh any argument you go for
- Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
- Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
- Any shell in a Varsity division is fair game - that being said, the more frivolous the argument, the lower the threshold for responses. Below are my preferences on common shells ran in PF.
- Theory about non-evidentiary ethics - things such as misgendering, violence, content warnings, etc. are good to read with a higher chance I vote off of the first 2 if there is clear abuse.
- Theory about evidence-related practices - paraphrasing, disclosure, etc. are fair game - I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but will not hack for these arguments in any way.
- Theory that has nothing to do with content in the round - take a guess
- Do a few things in ANY theory debate to increase your chances of winning - a) clearly extend EVERY part of the shell: this means the actual interp, not the spirit of it, and clear standards, voters, and paradigm issues, b) engage with the CI and do weighing - explain why your CI about full-text disclosure betters the activity in some way related to a standard you read compared to your opponents interp about open sourcing, c) never make arguments about inaccessibility of or against the reading of theory - if there's one thing I just won't believe here, it's that theory isn't accessible to smaller schools or newer debaters
Other Progressive Arguments
- Any argument, as long as it is warranted and impacted out is fair game - limit jargon on uncommon arguments or kritik's
- Layer arguments for me - there isn't a set in stone way to evaluate multiple types of progressive arguments in a round and they are up for interpretation here
- Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
- If you take more than 2 minutes to find a piece of evidence, speaks will be low.
- Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss
- I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
- If a team can win by reading cut cards only, you're guaranteed a 29 minimum
in my 3rd season as an assistant coach at the Blake School (MN) but I spend most of my time working a non-debate job meaning I do a lot less topic research than I used to
cornell '21 - ndt qual
carmel '17 - local circuit pf/policy
excited to watch you debate!
tl;dr: I can keep up with speed (re: policy), but I enjoy clear explanation more. Typically, tech over truth and flow-oriented. Will only intervene if I have to. No racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and transphobic language or arguments. Do what you would like. I think judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around.
That said, preferences are below. I hardly ever judge anything that's not PF these days, so paradigms for other events are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RK_g6krFLxB1sblzfjMlo8OsnV5ip4GLnpRgnKlgKdM/edit?usp=sharing
---non-negotiable rules: one winner and one loser, fixed speech times, and equal distribution of speaking time among partners (unless someone is sick or has to leave the room). Won't vote on what happened before I hit start.
---don't be rude. love sass, but don't ridicule others
---strike me if you are going to engage in sexually explicit performances
---very facially expressive; don't mind me
---slow down for theory
---I know nothing about your rep. I only debated for schools that had 0 rep (and 0-1 coaches). This doesn't make me pull for either the small school or the big school. Arguments are what matter.
---don't steal prep (calling for cards doesn't require speaking to your partner). I do my best to time it. Decision clock is ticking.
---don't clip. L25s if you do. Misrepresentations don't stop a round, but that ev won't count. Fabrication stops a round. Will defer to tournament rules/tab. I dislike evidence that's written by debaters/coaches about debate.
---number and label arguments (turn, non-unique, etc.)
---presumption flows the way of less change from the status quo (but debatable)
---if you want me to catch something in CX, say it in a speech. I'm usually writing comments/reading ev although I'm listening.
---reducing something to 0 risk is possible but very hard. I woiuldn't vote NEG if the 2NR/FF was ONLY case defense.
---line by line > cloud/implicit/overview clash. Won't do work for you.
---I only flow off what I hear. I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will ONLY read evidence. Don't spread what you paraphrase because it's usually incomprehensible.
---care a lot about impact calc (no really like I care a lot). I will always look at frameworks first. Answer turns case/prereq arguments!
---persuasive skills influence the flow (organization, delivery, flowability). I don't care what you wear, etc.
---arguments in the FF should be in the summary. Obvious implication/spin isn't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.
---to kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still get turns since not all defense gets you out of all offense.
---provide evidence in under two minutes or it's an analytic. Evidence should have full citations, not just a url. Cards > paraphrasing. PF ev often stinks, but it sometimes doesn't come down to ev quality only. If you strike a card from the flow, that's not reversible even if you find the evidence later.
---amenable to arguments that the AFF doesn't have to defend the entirety of the rez in every instance.
---strike me if you're debating for a social experiment/reading a meme case.
---pet peeves: 1) "time starts [on my first word/now]" 2) not timing your prep/cross 3) asking questions about a judge's paradigm during the round 4) debater math 5) kicking community judges on a panel.
---will evaluate all arguments, including theory or a K. Tell me if I need another sheet of paper. See below in policy section. If you aren't comfortable going for theory/K's, don't do it just because I'm judging. Comfortable voting on disclosure. I think the wiki is good. So does Blake.
I don't think debaters need to discuss most (or perhaps any) of the following to have a (good) theory debate. All of the following are negotiable. But it may be useful to know my preferences.
1) default to text of interp and competing interps > reasonability where the standard is gut-checking the interp for in-round abuse. Explaining your standard for reasonability (if you have one) is helpful. Counter-interps do not require an explicit text, especially in PF, where there is no expectation to know the terminology. CX is a great time to ask (the other team, not me). Teams answering theory should forward their view of debate. I am willing to accept spirit of the counter-interp if a counter-interp text is not read.
2) theory experience: witnessed (judged and competed in) more theory debates than I have fingers. "Have you won a 1AR in circuit LD/policy?" No, because I was a 2A. In the 2AR, I have gone for (and won and lost) theory such as PICs bad, condo, PIKs bad, and 50 states fiat bad.
3) terminal defense is sufficient under competing interps. Presumption would flip. I would prefer offense.
4) start theory ASAP, e.g. as soon as the violation happens
5) willing to listen to a RVI in PF/LD because of speech times that could mean skews. Default to no RVIs.
6) "theory without voters?" If the voters are made on the standards debate, that's fine. If there's no voters at all, the team answering theory should say so and then I would vote that there was no impact to theory.
7) will intervene against shoes theory/anything that approaches that threshold
9/13/21 - minor updates post-grad + striking cards irreversible + whole rez
I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.
I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.
Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.
Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:
1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.
2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)
3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.
4. Do not be rude in cross.
Once again, do not spread.
I have been a judge associated with Notre Dame High School since 2018 as my older sister is the director of speech and debate there. Tournaments I have judged include invitationals and state qualifiers. My experience includes debate events such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas, as well as interpretative, oratory and extemporaneous speech events. My debate judging style focuses on the value criteria of net benefit or maximizing welfare. If I feel the proposal would potentially do more harm than good compared to the status quo, I would vote for the negative. If the proposal seems to be more beneficial compared to the status quo, I would vote for the affirmative.
Blake '21, UChicago '25
Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.
- Pls run paraphrasing theory
- Send speech docs, its better for everyone
- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.
- I flow.
- Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.
- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are spreading long cards and not paraphrasing.
- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isnt sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it MUST be in both back half speeches.
- Please weigh.
- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.
- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, and Shane Stafford.
- Basically, go to Zoe Spicer's paradigm and do the opposite of everything she says. Unfortunately for her, to find her debate takes, you need to get a time machine and go back to the Jurassic era because of how ancient they are, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
email@example.com AND firstname.lastname@example.org -- Put BOTH on the email chain and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.
- Full roadmaps in PF are stupid, just tell me where you're starting and then signpost
- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline, turns and defense
- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.
- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often then not, clarity matters more than WPM, I know debaters who speak super fast and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vise versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must because I probably will miss things). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.
- Pls send speech docs, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.
- Extensions: You need to warrant arguments when you extend them, I do not appreciate blippy extensions because you ran out of time, go for less and weigh it. It will be hard for me to evaluate a blippy extension, and I don't want to have to do that to make a decision.
- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy.
- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.
- I cannot believe I have to make this apart of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns.
- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows - Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - point being that PF should add a plan/CP debate but thats for another day.
- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.
- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.
- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), etc.
I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:
- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense. As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.
- Paraphrasing: The single biggest problematic content-related norm in debate today is paraphrasing. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:
a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.
b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.
c. if you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will be PISSED and not only will I drop you but I will end the round early and give you lowest speaks I can give. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.
d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is not a world in which someone who paraphrases even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me and to this day I have not given someone paraphrasing above a 28 so please, just dont.
- Evidence exchange: if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too
- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.
- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.
I'm receptive to all args, and I love the idea of progressive arguments in PF because it is about time that the community came around to allowing these types of arguments into the debate space. Used properly, they give a very good opportunity to making the debate space better, more inclusive and, more fair. Here are a few disclaimers for me personally:
- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.
- I am personally biased and I will vote for arguments if I believe they make the debate space better. This is mostly true for paraphrasing bad, although I am also biased towards disclosure good.
- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments
- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. By that I mean this, I am going to eval the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to eval it normally.
- RVIs are dumb, you don't get to win for proving you are ethical. I suppose I can see myself voting for an RVI if someone horrifically mishandles it, but if theres warranted clash on the issue of RVIs, I generally think no-RVIs.
- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other non-sense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.
- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.
- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it. IF YOU INITIATE PARA GOOD I WILL DROP YOU
- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow (with a shade to disclosure good).
- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.
Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:
- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.
- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.
- Also, no one thinks fiat is real, so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.
- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.
- Any sort of IVI or something along those lines is fine, you just need to make the violation clear, and warrant why dropping them is important or does anything. Without that internal warranting, these debates are somewhat unproductive and kind of annoying. There are plenty of justifiable IVIs, just explain why they are and you should be fine.
I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy Bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.
Hey I'm Luca
Remster HS '19
Currently at UH Manoa
Add me to the email chain for all rounds: email@example.com
Do what you love or are good at. I love a case-specific counterplan/DA strategy almost as much as I love nuanced K on K debates about how we as activists and scholars and people should respond to our fucked up world. I enjoy daring, ambitious, and nuanced strategies and will reward debaters who put in the work to execute them.
Arguments > evidence. Use the evidence you have read already before you read 10 more cards. If you write strategic 1ACs/1NCs, you shouldn't need much evidence to answer the other team after that -- and, by extension, every card you read should have strategic importance. Recutting evidence is appreciated.
Saying or doing racist/transphobic/ableist/etc. things will not go over well and will be responded to with anything from an autoloss to zero speaks to a 27 depending on the severity of the issue.
1. Fairness is not not an impact. If your version of fairness is a tautological defense of old school debate that barely acknowledges the history of this activity or of framework as a set of arguments, I would probably recommend developing a different reason why we should invest in your model of competition.
That said, while "intrinsic goods" probably don't exist but procedural impacts probably do. Make warrants for fairness as an impact and do impact calculus about why it outweighs. Saying "it comes first" will rarely get my ballot however given a similarly tagline aff response.
2. Critical affs should probably have a model of debate -- a 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards. I find questions of stasis to be clear packages for this -- i.e. what controversial question do we center as a point of clash? Is it a question of praxis? Is it axiological? If you can provide a clear vision for how we construct affs and produce clash then all your impact turns will be a lot more persuasive to me.
If you chose to ground a model of debate outside interpretations of the resolutional language, good for you! Defend why that is a good method!
3. Examples/history matter to how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make it far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.
This applies to FW too -- this activity has a long and thoroughly discussed history of how it has approached each resolution, practices like fiat, models of competition, etc. Use it!
4. TVAs and SSD -- you should explain to me what about the aff's offense is solved by them. I don't care if the aff could have used the same five McGowan Cards to advocate for a plan, the purpose of a TVA/SSD is to resolve or no link out of some point of offense against your interpretation. They are examples that prove that your interp doesn't cause bad subject formation, exclude critcisms of X, etc. Using them against the disads to your interp or the net benefits to theirs rather than against the 1AC in a vacuum will be more persuasive.
5. Critical affs should have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be far more persuaded by framework against affs that don't do anything or say anything about CJR after the first card than I will be against teams that spent the time to write an affirmative that answers a core question of the topic.
6. Critiques against policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I will enjoy in-depth link and alt work more. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out.
K v K debates:
I love these -- they tend to be some of the most creative and meaningful debates I get to judge. Make arguments and care about what the other team has to say and I will probably be very happy to be in the back.
Competition -- affs have the burden of proof, and I begin with an assumption that the negative has the burden of rejoinder. This is debatable and some of the best strategies I've listened to have critiqued this assumption, so it is more of a default approach than a set in stone rule.
Perms -- I can be persuaded that critical affs should not get them. Teams have to justify why opportunity cost/competition/forced choices should or should not apply to the arguments forwarded. The more that an aff's method defends, the less likely I am to deny them a perm. If an aff defends nothing but a theory of power or an individual, in-round survival strategy then I am more likely to think that they shouldn't get a perm.
Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.
I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.
I am a good judge to go for theory in front of when it comes to process counterplans. I think cheaty counterplans are cheaty (that's why I read them so much when I did policy).
PICs and PIKs (and PIPs) -- I love them but they are also definitely cheating. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory. The more contrived the PIK, the more persuaded I will be by theory.
2NC Uniquness counterplans are fiesty and I love them -- affs should be prepared for them. Theory is always an option for me
I prefer to watch topic or case specific DAs more than agenda/midterms DAs. I can be persuaded by intrinsicness theory.
That said, Politics/Midterms DAs -- these can actually be great. I love a midterms DA that is specific to which states are key and why the aff flips them enough to swing congress or a Politics DA that pulls out specific votes that will flip. Nuance on the LINK LEVEL is what is always missing from these debates in highschool, however, which is why I find them boring a lot.
The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.
2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically often come out ahead for me.
I am p familiar with the water topic so do your thing but just know the wording in the res will probs have me lean aff with certain plans however i am easily convinced other wise.
But I enjoy T debates themselves. Creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.
Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.
Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed. You should control this framing. I tend to vote for evidentiary T args more often than normative ones in policy debates, and the opposite in K debates and I attribute that to the depth and quality of framing in each.
I will most likely give you a 28-30 if you:
- Speak loudly and clearly, no "spreading" please, the slower you speak the easier it will be for me to comprehend your arguments so please do not speak too fast
- Be polite to your opponent, if you mock/insult/rudely interrupt your opponent, you will lost speaker points. During cross-ex please try to be as polite as possible and do not get too aggressive
- Explain arguments properly, when explaining your arguments to clearly tell me where you are on the flow and explain terms such as "turn" and "non-unique"
Appearance: While it will not influence my decision, please respect the tournaments dress code and wear appropriate clothing.
Decisions: I will most likely vote for the team that best explains and extends their warrants and impacts. Please throughly explain why your impact matters and why we should solve for it as it makes my decision much easier.
Use of evidence: I highly value evidence and believe most of not all of your claims should have evidence to back it up. If you believe your opponents evidence is not credible please throughly explain why.
Debate skill and truthful argument: While a value a truthful argument over debate skill, presentation will impact my decision. If you do not seem confident in your argument it will make me feel the same way.
I debated for two years for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS. I'm now a freshman at UC Berkeley and a coach for College Prep. In my senior year I won Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.
UPDATE FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON:
I will be requiring all debaters to send the cut cards and paraphrased versions (if they exist) of their constructive speeches in the email chain before the speech in which they are read. That means case and rebuttal.
Tabula rasa judge. Weigh, give me good warranting, and speak as fast as you want. Defense is sticky; first FF may read some new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.
DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.
Tech>truth. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well and it's not racist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, etc. I have experience with traditional and progressive. I will vote on the flow.
How I Judge:
If my paradigm is unclear, my favorite judges were Will Sjostrom, Chad Meadows and Marcus Ellinas; anything PF-specific in their paradigms should give you a fairly good idea of how I hope to evaluate the round.
———PART I: SPEECHES———
This is essential; do it.
I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Don't be rude. Feel free to skip GCX if everyone agrees—both teams get 1min of prep.
Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too, but blippy NLs from the first rebuttal don't all need to be answered here.
First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.
First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.
———PART II: TECHNICAL STUFF———
DO NOT SAY 'DELINK,' SAY 'NO LINK.'
I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round, whether the tournament permits it or not. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.
I will not accept paraphrased evidence. I treat paraphrased cards as equal in link strength to analytics. (You can make a theory argument as to why I shouldn't). If there are two pieces of competing evidence that will determine the round and both teams want me to look at it... I will almost always err on the side of the non-paraphrased evidence. Whether or not you paraphrase, YOU MUST have cut cards, if you don't I will cap your speaks at 27 and you should strike me (27 speaks cap does not apply for MSPF, NPF or JVPF).
When evidence is called for, take less than 2 minutes to pull up the cards or it comes out of your prep.
If you misconstrue evidence—you know who you are—and I find out, I will either drop you or give you the lowest possible speaks, depending on the severity of the misconstruction (I am more than willing to assign an L20 or below). If you catch your opponents misconstruing evidence, call it an independent voting issue (IVI) and I will treat this as a pre-fiat round-ending argument if the evidence is sufficiently misconstrued.
Please label email chains adequately. Ex. "TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS."
Whether or not the tournament is online I will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. If you choose to send a speech doc with cut cards before the given speech begins, I'll start your speaks at a 29 and won't go below that.
Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, flex prep is fine too.
These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp, if you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.
I can follow speed (300wpm+) but be clear, if I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 275 words per minute. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (300+ wpm) paraphrased cards there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.
If you've disclosed on the NDCA PF wiki properly I will give you +0.5 speaks, there's no punishment for not disclosing. Let me know if you are disclosed before the round so I can boost your speaks. (How to disclose.) Disclosure should include round reports and open source documents (I believe that disclosing highlights is bad, I will not increase speaks or look more favorably on highlights having been disclosed).
Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.
Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational. Before you start make sure I've submitted your speaks.
I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize the absence of them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see J. Haidt and G. Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind) This means that I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory; I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).
———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———
I enjoy theory debate; I run theory frequently. You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory; 'I don't know how to respond' is not a sufficient response. To quote my partner Roy Tiefer, "don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments" (saying that is terminal defense against any 'idk how to respond' argument and will result in a 30 for whoever says it).
Theory/T - 1
LARP - 1
Kritik - 3
Tricks - 3
High Theory - 4
Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)
Performance - 5 (Strike)
Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells.
I really like theory. I think frivolous theory is bad but I'll evaluate it; I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.
I default to competing interps and no RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Non-friv theory should be a zero risk issue to check abuse, I will still vote for RVIs if you win them.
Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.
Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you're speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST need to extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).
I have run Ks a few times, however, I am not the best K judge rounds. I'm more familiar with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism than anything else. You can run high theory Ks just explain them well, I've read some of the literature in school.
These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.
Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.
If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks (unless you have violated any previous clauses related to speaker points), if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.
I am a parent judge who has experience judging the Public Forum debate. I prefer clear argumentation that directly relates to the topic and for students to provide voter issues for me in the final rebuttal speeches. I don't like it when debaters dodge questions in cross-ex.
For background, I debated PF 4 years with MVLA. As much as I might like to think I am a tech flow judge, in reality, I am very flay. If you see anything on my paradigm that you disagree with, feel free to ( nicely ) talk me out of it, I'm open to being persuaded.
First speaking teams: unresponded-to defense that you put on their case does not need to be extended, but if it is absolutely crucial to you winning, maybe consider bringing it up again (obviously you must respond to things if they are frontlined). Any offense must be in summary but I'll extend dropped turns as mitigation.
Second speaking teams: Turns and disads coming out of 1st rebuttal must be responded to or it's a drop, you can respond to terminal D in summary.
Both teams: I really do need clean extensions of all necessary links and impacts in summary and final focus if you want offense. This doesn't mean that you need to give me your whole case again, but I do need all the links necessary to access the impact you are going for. Make it clear !!!
You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over an unwarranted card. Extend logical warranting in addition to links cards/impacts otherwise, I won't want to vote on it
Please signpost by voter, links, or impacts (PLS number them, its greatly appreciated). I don't always catch card names and I guarantee I'll miss content if I don't know where to flow.
- Content warnings: you need to read a content warning if you are discussing sensitive topics or topics that may endanger people's safety. My preferred method is reading the warning before the round and providing your phone number so people can anonymously tell you if they are uncomfortable. You must have a backup case to read if someone is uncomfortable.
- Speaking: Some speed is fine, i'll say clear if I can't understand. Speaks are based mostly on content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well.
-Cross: I generally don't listen at all, but I do catch things if they stand out (i.e. being rude/yelling, referencing "judge"), but if you concede something in cross it can be brought up in speeches. If I didn't hear it happen and the other team says it didn't, I just won't consider it.
- Theory/Progressive args: On the one hand I do think that theory can disadvantage new debaters or underfunded teams, but I also think its really fun and can lead to a lot of more positive changes in debate, so run at your own risk, and think about whether your shell or K or whatever is worth the exclusion. I think progressive args are super fun and I did run some while debating, that said I'm not an expert so if you do run them make sure to fully explain.
- I presume 1st speaking team if I need to.
- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. Also, please do metaweighing if teams clash on weighing (which is almost always). I really do love a good weighing debate, please weigh.
-Collapsing: please collapse. I get it, sometimes you need to fill up a speech or you just feel like you'll be stronger if you keep all your args, but being able to very clearly defend one arg is really so much better than under covering a couple.
- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, it’s still wrong. Find cards within a couple of minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to and if my decision hinges upon the validity of a card that's been highly contested.
- Please be respectful during the debate. I'm not afraid to tank speaks if you're being rude, and I will honestly be more likely to find a reason to drop you.
- If you're running econ arguments I feel the need to tell you that I am particularly bad at comprehending these, so simple explanations will be appreciated if you have time. Don't fret, I still treat it like any other argument, so even if I don't understand it I'll vote on it if you handle responses to it
- If you ignore my paradigm, I'm not gonna drop you (unless it's the bolded parts) so feel free to debate in the way that's most comfortable to you, this is just what I like.
- I attempt to be a visual judge, so if I'm nodding it means I understand and you can move on, if I'm frowning it means I'm confused, if I'm smiling it probably means that I think something interesting is going on.
Please speak slowly and clearly.
Please be respectful to your opponents.
Prefer Crossfire to be question and answer rather than arguing.
This is my first time judging, I judge for the Quarry Lane School. Please be respectful to your opponents during crossfire and please talk clearly and not too fast. I might take light notes but if anything is crucial please emphasize during speeches. Most importantly, have fun!
I have been judging since 2018 in 7 tournaments from the rookie to varsity levels. I have been a lawyer in the past and like to view both viewpoints with good supporting evidence. Support for your contentions have to hold solid ground.
I also love clarity over ambiguity.
My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).
In high school I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate, but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.
My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.
Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!
Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.
If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.
Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)
Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.
Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on proves incomprehensible in an online setting.
On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.
On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.
I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.
I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.
Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.
Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)
hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org facebook.com/nate.nyg
he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)
i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I'm currently a 2n at wake forest where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda. i did pf my freshman year, so i'm familiar, but don't assume i know every single thing about the activity and its conventions.
i'm willing to vote on anything and am purely tab with the caveat of intervening against oppressive argumentation. if you're reading theory or k's in pf, i guess i'd vote on it, but please make an effort to make your arguments accessible to your opponents -- pf has not entirely adapted to new norms and if you don't try to adapt your arguments to pf and instead just assume your opponents will know your exact format and everything i'll be annoyed and speaks will suffer. bad theory and k debates don't get my ballot, and frivolous theory in pf is probably the stupidest thing i can think of.
i think the way pf handles evidence is really silly -- i have no clue why people don't just send a doc with all the evidence in their case. for that matter, i also have no idea why people don't just send speech docs, but i understand that this is an activity with norms and i won't make you go against them. that being said, your speaks will be happier if you choose to engage in either of those practices.
I did 3 years of public forum at Poly Prep (2015-2018) and I'm a senior at uchicago. Email chain: email@example.com
- here's how i make my decision: i look at who wins the weighing/framework. I evaluate that argument. If you win the weighing/framework and the offense with a terminalized impact, you'll probably win. If no one weighs then I'm gonna go with scope or the argument with the least ink.
- I don't like frivolous theory. If you read it you better go for it. Ks are cool, but I reserve the right to intervene if I feel like you're running it in a problematic/game-y way.
- I like warrants. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground. I prefer your counter warrant/ev as a response rather than just their lack of supporting evidence.
- speed is fine as long as you aren't speaking unclearly.
- First summary doesn't have to extend defense from rebuttal unless second rebuttal frontlines. Turns/Offense you want me to vote on need to be in both summary and final focus.
- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline but I like it when you do.
- I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech
- I don't time but if your opponents are telling me time is up I'll stop flowing but give them at least 5 seconds. Don't hold up your timer .5 seconds after the speech time is over
- i default neg if there's no offense
I have very limited experiences in judging debate. I have a hard time to take note while listening, and may miss argument points when people speak too fast.
Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School
(High School Constraints - Edgemont)
(College Constraints - Stanford, Harvard, and a crew of exceptionally talented college debaters I've had the pleasure to coach)
2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition
Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."
Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.
Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.
Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.
2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020
I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!
Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.
Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.
I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.
Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.
2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018
As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.
I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.
Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta than you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.
Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!
**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**
2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016
HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.
Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me this is laziness and will not be rewarded.
Beyond that the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.
NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is a mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element the activity is doomed for the future.
As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.
I also don’t want people to think this has to do with anyone set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.
As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments amongst participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; that the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and using it to get judges who will automatically check in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. Its not about who wrote the best constructives only. Its about how teams clash throughout the debate.
Therefore, as a result I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.
2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)
The following are not for the faint of heart!
Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered.Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.
**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era were students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasis the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must proves their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negatives burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.
2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)
If you love debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!
If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance
And you thought you had a sick blog!!
Also why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!
To only be shown up by a 2 year old killing it to Adele
Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Suzuki and KJaggz
2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012
Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.
1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!
2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.
2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.
3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.
4. T is about reasonability not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.
5. Debate should be hard; its what makes it fun and keeps us interested.
6. Research is good - its rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.
7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This mean they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.
8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.
9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.
10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your life long friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!
Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.
Additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or its won in a speech.
Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011
So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and less sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. Its called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?
Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010
I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full time coach. Debate is my full time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.
I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.
First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.
Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being ran every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.
Nothing will lose my favor or interest faster than a debate on the rules of debate. I appreciate well-researched cases and strong link chains, but I find spreading to be borderline intolerable. I want to see unfavorable points negated with elegant use of evidence and logic. Attempting to dominate a round with jargon and technicalities overshadows the sharing of ideas and the ability to learn from one another, which in my opinion, flies directly in the face of and casts a shadow on this art form. That being said, don’t be afraid to bring attention to outright abusive argumentation - just be prepared to back up what you’re saying in a way that just and truthful. I like your personalities to shine through and for your communication styles to have an individual essence. Please don’t make me have to judge rounds based on who is the fastest or trickiest robot. It truly breaks my heart. Manage your own time so that I can pay attention to what you’re saying. Use a timer that I’ll be able to hear, but if it goes off, complete your thought as quickly and neatly as possible without just dropping it. Any new points introduced after time will count against you. I’m a fidgety sitter and prefer to flow by hand so I’ll usually turn off my camera while people are speaking, so as not to cause a distraction as I flip pages and scratch away. Please let me know if you’d prefer I didn’t do so.
I didn’t get serious about public forum until about halfway through my high school speech career, and by my senior year, it was my main event. That year, my partner and I won both our NSDA (formerly NFL) National Qualifying tournament, and our state’s local organization’s championship. I always prided myself on my relaxed, easy going, evidence and logic based, and respectful but fun speaking style. Remember that most of your judges are not former debaters and that you have an enormous opportunity to educate adults and maybe even change their minds about some things when you communicate effectively. My favorite thing about judging is getting a glimpse at the future leaders of our nation’s government and workplaces, for the most part, you all give me a tremendous amount of hope. Thank you for your participation and congratulations to all of you for your hard work.
See record below. Please ask specific questions should you have them.
remi (she/ her) I'm a sophomore at gw studying IA and environmental studies. I did pf in hs but consider me flay
also tell me your pronouns and names before the round starts!
read the resolution before the round for me on day 1 of tournaments plz
EXTEND your warrants and impacts (quantified preferably) plz -- if you want it voted on, it has to be said in summary AND final focus
basic jargon is fine (DL, turn, extend, time frame) but don't go crazy
I don't write down card names, stats or warrants yes but not names sources or years so if you mention a card name and don't explain it ill be confused
I don't evaluate cross fire, if something happens, tell me in a speech
read content warnings on everything I would appreciate it
if you wanna wear sweats or a hoodie that's fine, come in a hat for all I care!
I dont know how to evaluate theory and K's but if you wanna try you can lol
dont be rude and have fun!
I appreciate a logical argument that weighs both sides. I do research the topics a little, so please do not misconstrue evidence. You should be able to reasonably explain your argument, stating cards is not enough. Please do not get too aggressive, I will dock points if the debate is not respectful.
I appreciate strong evidence along with viable warrants.
Good speaking is imperative.
Be respectful during cross, and don't spread.
- Add me to your email chain, email@example.com.
- Please time yourselves.
- Partner communication is absolutely welcome but I only flow whatever the speaker says.
- (Pertaining to parli) I’m not a big fan of speed though I can follow along fairly well. I would much rather hear a few very well-thought-out arguments as opposed to a bunch of flimsier ones.
- Be aware of your opponent's speed preferences and adjust accordingly when they call clear/speed. If you don't, I will take off speaker points.
- Make sure to provide a framework as that is what I will follow.
- I try to make my decision solely based on my flow and what is said within round. I won’t make any assumptions or link/impact out arguments for you.
- I will vote on T or tricot as long as it makes sense.
- I enjoy T arguments very much, but make sure to provide an interp, standards, and voters.
- K’s should only be run when the other side believes it’s more important than whatever is currently being debated and directly connects to the resolution. There should be clear links, impacts, and solvency/alternatives. The alt should solve at least some of the aff. Please don’t assume I am familiar with the foundational literature.
- I absolutely love counterplans, but make sure you explain why it’s both competitive and net beneficial. Make sure to still provide DAs.
- I really really like to see clash within a debate.
- Extend arguments!
- Impacts and impact analysis are important! Make sure to impact everything out, I don’t want to do the work for you. Tell me what I should consider most important and why. Also explain how competing arguments should be evaluated.
- I like clear links, impacts, and warrants. Warrants strengthen arguments and are something I definitely look for.
- Make sure to summarize in the rebuttal why I should be voting for the aff/neg. Voters and impact calculus are your (and my!) best friends.
I value analysis in a debate with supporting facts. It is also important how you deliver the facts. A good debate is a combination of facts, arguments and delivery. I also equally discourage made-up facts. You need to show the credible sources for your facts.
I am a parent judge, I have difficulty understanding some terminology so please send me cases @ firstname.lastname@example.org if possible before the round, i will also add 1 speaker point as compensation
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)
If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.
NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and/or throw my pen if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary. Ask me questions!
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM
For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a dcebater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.
Torrey Pines '19
*conflicts: Torrey Pines HS, Advanced Tech Acad
- I’ll vote for almost anything as long as it isn’t morally abhorrent
- go a bit slower bc of online debate, thanks :)
- Read whatever you want as long as you can explain it
- If you have any questions just ask before round or you can msg me on fb/email me
Defaults (can be changed if you make the args)
- Neg on presumption
- Drop the debater, competing interps, no rvi
CP - Should solve the case or part of it, have a solvency advocate, and be competitive with the aff. PIC’s are fine, 1-2 condo is fine, also open to aff theory against them.
DA – Disads are great, higher quality disads > higher quantity of disads.
Kritiks – My knowledge is mostly towards more basic k’s like cap, security, setcol, etc. It’s your job to articulate the k to make sure I understand - I'm not well read on a lot of lit bases and I might not know the jargon you use. Contextualize the k/links to the aff. High theory – really interesting but the extent of my knowledge is a 30 min lecture from Ronak and a bit of source reading so probably not a good idea.
K Affs – I like them and read them, but I don’t favor either side of the debate more than the other. Make sure you explain what the aff actually does.
Topicality – Convince me that your model/interp of debate is better than theirs.
T/FW - TVA arguments and case lists help me visualize the interpretation.
Theory – Good theory for me includes things like 50 state fiat bad, floating piks bad, disclosure, etc. Friv theory - I’ll still vote on it but the threshold for responding lowers the more friv it is.
Phil – I find philosophy interesting but I only have base level understanding of anything not util.
Tricks – 0 experience
Speaking Scale (Stolen from Mihir)
30 - Your debate will most likely be one of the best I’ve seen. Execution was flawless and strategy was unique and executed correctly.
29.5 and Up – You're one of the top debaters at the tournament and debated as one of the top debaters at the tournament.
29 and Up – Above average debate and minor errors. I expect you’ll be in elims
28.5 and Up – Mediocre debate where you made some flaws but found a way to get the W
28 and Up – This round was fairly disappointing, had several mistakes, and missed opportunities to win
Below 28 – There are several issues with this round that made it hard to watch
Below 27 – You have engaged in some problematic practice that should not appear in another debate that was either offensive or cheating.
I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and currently attend Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is email@example.com -- put me on the email chain!
TLDR; tech > truth, please weigh, be nice to your opponent!
I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although I debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. My biggest preference is just for intelligent well-thought out arguments, whether that's a kritik, a plan aff or a framework. That said, here are my preferences:
- Please please please do not be late :(
- Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC . So if you're extemping things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
- The biggest reason people lose in front of me is because they do not explicitly weigh. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, PLEASE, OR ELSE I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE. And then we will all be sad. If you do not weigh in your speech, and then you lose, that is on you.
- Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
- I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
- I reserve the right to vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
- I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
- I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
- I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
- I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
- It's really hard to flow spreading on Zoom. I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks
- If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
- I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded. Just know your speaks will suffer.
- Slow down for interps/counterinterps
- If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it
- I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
- Please weigh
- I think people think I don't like Ks?? This is not true. Kritiks, run well, are one of my favorite kinds of arguments. I'm pretty familiar with most K lit, with the exception of POMO stuff, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always good.
- My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh, and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication. (I.e. you have to say, this takes out theory, and why).
Things that will get you high speaks
- Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
- Good strategies
- Using CX effectively
- High argument quality
- Good overviews/crystallization
- Good case debate — please don't drop the aff!!!!
Things that will get you low speaks:
- not disclosing
- being shifty
- lots of spikes/blippy arguments
- super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
- clearly not understanding your own positions
- being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
- academic dishonesty
Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will definitely try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will definitely perform how I perceive rounds, I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.
IF YOUR TEAM SENDS EVIDENCE DOCS BEFORE EVERY SPEECH, I WILL ADD +1 TO WHATEVER SPEAKS I WAS GOING TO GIVE YOU. <3
- Extra points if you send me your constructive so I can read along - my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
- PF is a completely different format than LD, so don't use my technical preferences as a guideline (i.e. I do not care about disclosure in PF if you're not spreading, which you shouldn't be doing in PF).
- I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not. I'll write your arguments down but you won't get great speaks, and I am much less likely to find your arguments persuasive
- I would highly recommend against reading circuit LD arguments in front of me. I do not think you have the time to execute this arguments effectively in the format. I will intervene against debaters who read circuit LD/policy arguments if I think you are engaging in practices that are bad for the format, especially if you seem to be excluding your opponent.
- Make good arguments.
- I'm probably on the technical side of judges because of my LD background, so be as explicit as possible with things like weighing. Tech > truth but I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted
- Be persuasive!
- I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.
- There is a trend in PF to read LD/policy type arguments with super long link chains. I tend to find them unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated and that the narrative of your link chain is clear.
- In the absence of clear weighing, I'll default to strength of link
- I find arguments with short link chains most persuasive (e.g. no one has explained the bonds argument on neg well to me)
- the developing world is not a monolith. If you want to read developing world impacts, make them specific -- contextualize to specific countries/impact stories.
PF TOC Update
- I would prefer if you don't read theory. My views are more comprehensively reflected here: https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/ (I don't expect anyone to have read this, unless if a team decides to initiate the type of theory criticized in this article).
- If your opponent miscuts evidence, you can point it out and say I should drop them. If the violation is clear, I will. There's no need to read a theory shell.
- Slow, persuasive, concise speeches are greatly preferred over fast/blippy ones
Mountain House '18, UCLA '22
TL;DR: If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments (SHITS) are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.
"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."
I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.
Tech >>>>> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).
for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K, I've definitely gotten slower (I'm over a year out), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.
If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~
If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.
I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.
It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow the fuck down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.
I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.
I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.
Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"
NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.
Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be an asshole in x-fire.
On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.
ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:
PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.
i flow the round but i'm not tech and i can handle some speed (be safe and just go slow). i'm pretty well-read on most topics, especially economic ones, but i'm tech over truth. logic > evidence w/o warranting. if the tournament allows me to i'll disclose w/ a detailed rfd
Don't spread, make sure to make your arguments clear.
All responses to constructive must be in rebuttal. If an argument is not extended through FF & Summary, then it won't count. Make sure to frontline your defense against the opponents through all speeches as well.
email@example.com -- add to the email chain
I am a parent judge without a year of experience judging in PF. A few notes about my preferences:
- Please try to speak slowly, if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to evaluate it in my decision
- Act civil during crossfire, I will drop your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents
- Don't run arguments that use lots of complex technical argumentation and jargon (K's, theory, etc.)
- I evaluate the flow to judge the round, but please give me a clear narrative, I enjoy voting for arguments that are cohesive and well-warranted
- Don't misconstrue your evidence and make sure that if you paraphrase, it accurately represents your evidence
- Give me clear link extensions and weighing in the final focus, and don't bring up new offense after first summary
- Time yourselves please
- Make sure to address all responses from first rebuttal in your second rebuttal, otherwise I will consider the responses dropped
- If you send me your disclosed case I will give you +1 speaker points. firstname.lastname@example.org
Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)
Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.
St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone
Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)
Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.
Part of what you should know about any of the events
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX and in all events with only exception in PF grand.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, as I have seen a bizarre one once, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)
I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)
Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.
If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.
ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.
If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.
I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.
Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX and in all events with only exception in PF grand.
Please don't diss my event.
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin america topic.
In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)
I will freely vote on T if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.
I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)
SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.
I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.
I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event I judge. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments. It didn't work for the racism k kids in policy in the movie resolved, and drop the debater because fairness is a voter won't work either in my round (for example)
-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs
- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)
IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW.....
Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.
PLANS IN LD
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.
EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.
If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.
I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.
GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah
I am a new judge, and I do not have formal debate experience. I believe in conciseness and clarity.
Keys to success:
1) Focus on clarity over speed
2) Arguments should be coherent and directly relevant to the question/point
3) Be your confident and respectful self
I'm a parent judge, first timer here.
Say clearly and articulate your points well.
Please be polite, slow.
And have fun!
Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric. I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.
If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.
FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.
Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.
By profession, I am a Program Manager with Bank of the West and have worked for 2 decades with several diverse teams with different opinions on matters. I enjoy considering conflicting points of view. I am a PF judge and have a reasonable familiarity with the rules.
- Please do not use extremely complicated debate jargon.
- I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link and conceded arguments. I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.
-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc.
- Please collapse
- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus
- Speaker points are used to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round
- Be respectful in cross as I play close attention to it.
- Don't speak too fast but if you do please give me the speech doc
- Time yourself and make your opponents accountable for their speech and prep timings
- Weigh your impacts and explain
- Provide an off-time roadmap
- Have Fun!
Please let me know if you have any questions. My email is email@example.com
I am a lay judge, so make sure that final focuses and summaries are slow and actually summarizes everything and restates your argument.
Second year lay judge.
1. Do not speak too fast. Be Clear.
2. Rather than just reading cards, make sure to clearly warrant everything you say in round.
3. Make sure your arguments are consistent throughout the round.
4. Any arguments made in final focus must have been mentioned in summary.
5. Be sure to weigh clearly. Interactive weighing is great.
6. Do not be rude to your opponents during the round.
Hi friends! My name is Abby (they/she) and I was a Public Forum debater, Extemper, and Congressional debater for just about the entirety of high school! I participated on both local and national circuits, so I will most likely have a decent idea of what you’re talking about. I was a pretty traditional debater from a pretty traditional circuit, but I’ll be able to understand just about any type of argument as long as it’s explained well. I’m only a year out of high school, so I'm not too far removed from the debate community (yet). In case you care, I’m currently a freshman at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities studying Political Science and French Language (fun stuff, I know).
If you only have like 10 seconds before the round, quick notes:
Include me in the email chain/evidence doc (my email is at the bottom).
Clearly explain any theory or anything wildly non-traditional.
Explain more complex arguments/link chains and explain them WELL.
Evidence fraud is icky.
Spreading has no place in PF. Talking fast is fine, but make sure you're speaking at an understandable, clear pace.
Treat everyone equally regardless of their identity or skill level.
If you’re reading something potentially triggering, have a backup case ready and ask everyone in the round if they’re okay with you reading it. Don’t read overly graphic arguments in front of me.
If you misgender or use any offensive language towards me or your opponents, I WILL drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. Don’t even try to get away with hatred, I’ll catch it and cause problems.
I like framework, but I won’t die if you don’t introduce one. I was usually first speaker, so I get the struggle of fitting everything in within four minutes, but don’t be gasping for breath while screaming 50 different contentions at me. Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, EXPLAIN THEORY, LONG LINK CHAINS, AND ANYTHING SUPER COMPLICATED. It makes things easier for me and for your opponents. Debate isn't fun if nobody understands what's going on.
For both first and second rebuttal, address framework if one is presented in the round!! Give me reasons to prefer your framework over theirs. If you don’t, I’ll prefer your opponent’s automatically or I’ll default to a cost-benefit analysis.
Don’t be a jerk. Don’t talk over your opponents if you can help it, and please don’t yell. On the same note, don’t be afraid to be assertive! As a female debater, I noticed that my male opponents often overlooked me or didn’t take me seriously: don’t let them do that to you. I’ll probably pay attention to cross, but I won’t flow anything unless you explicitly bring something up in a speech. If you’re being rude or disrespectful to your opponents or partner, it’ll hurt your speaks and possibly even impact my ballot.
WEIGH!!! I know everyone says that, but it’s super important! Remember to address everything important and set up voters for your partner’s final focus. When it comes to weighing evidence, don’t just cite the names and dates of the cards- tell me what they say and why I should prefer your card.
I want you to give me voters. Sum up the round accurately and touch on everything your partner said in summary, even if it’s just for 5 seconds. Use your time wisely.
I generally give really good speaker points as long as I feel you deserve them (I’m talking 28-30). I can handle speed for the most part, but I do believe that spreading has no place in PF. I’ll stop flowing if I cannot understand you, but I’ll let you know before it gets to that point (most likely by flailing my arms around or doing something of the sort). Just remember: I’m not stupid. Don’t treat me like I am, otherwise your speaks will suffer. Also, don’t be a jerk (if you’re really rude, I will drop you)!! Don’t throw around fancy debate language and then not elaborate. Using buzzwords like magnitude, turn, and fiat mean NOTHING if you don’t explain yourself.
I don’t tolerate hate or any bad -isms/-phobias (sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc.).
I’ll time your speeches, but make sure to time yourself too! If you go over time, I’ll give you until the end of your sentence to finish. When it comes to cross, I'll let you finish answering the question if you go over time.
Evidence fraud is gross. Don’t do that (I really don't want to deal with it).
If you’re a varsity/more experienced team, DON’T be mean or condescending to a JV/novice team. They’re learning. Be good role models.
Please please please turn off any obnoxious ringtones or notifications coming from your phone while you’re debating. They drive me absolutely crazy.
Don’t be afraid to make a joke, be a little bit sassy, and have fun! Debate is supposed to be educational, but that doesn’t mean it has to be boring!
I will ALWAYS disclose after round unless I am explicitly told not to or if extreme circumstances arise.
If you have any questions or comments, don’t be afraid to email me! I’ll do my best to respond ASAP! Include me in any email chains and/or evidence docs used in round. If you ask in round if I want to be added to the evidence doc/email chain, I’ll probably be very sad because that means you didn’t read my paradigm. :(
its online debate, please start an email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I did PF for 4 years, graduated in 2019 from millard north (NE). currently coaching at Blake (MN).
I would call myself a flow judge. "tech > truth" unless the evidence that is being read is very misrepresented.
Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in every speech. There's no such this as sticky defense. Frontline & extend in 2nd RB. This means your impacts too! It takes two seconds to just mention your impact after frontlining.
you do not have to extend in 1st RB
I prefer the weighing done for me; as in a bunch of warrants, defense and turns will do nothing for me if they are not contextualized. I expect to hear why I should prefer your side with reference to warrants. I could maybe vote on something left off of FF, but I won't extend something from case/rebuttal to summary UNLESS it makes sense in the round (ie opponent brings it up again). Link weighing is always appreciated!
I do not flow cross-ex. if it's a new argument/warranting in CX, it should be in a speech
As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed (unless it will be very fast spreading) as long as you are clear. A speech doc will be well appreciated if you are speaking fast. I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous (ex: no shoe theory). Ks and shells both ok. I default to reasonability. Please note I am not an expert with theory, and again speech docs will help me understand more.
Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 1-2 min to find it or send it out. Also I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card. I know online debate means I cant enforce this too well so honor system.
About paraphrasing: It takes away from the education of the debate, I do hate it, and while I won't drop you (on face) for it, I won't like you any better if you give me 40 one lined "cards" in case or rebuttal. Plus it just takes away from the round when your opponent has to call for 10 cards because you read them too fast.
Overall, I try my best to make the right decision (but I'm nowhere near perfect). If you have ANY questions feel free to contact me (email@example.com) or ask me before/after round. Thank you!
I'm a lay judge and have 3 years of judging experience. I'll be taking notes throughout the round, so be as clear, slow, and understandable as possible. I'm mostly tech > truth, but I won't vote on frivolous/squirrely args. I also won't vote on theory, K's, etc. Please be respectful throughout the round. If you catch miscut ev, point it out in a speech and I'll take it into consideration. (written by daughter)
This is my first time judging IEs (I usually judge PF)!