California Invitational Berkeley Debate
2022 — Berkeley, CA/US
Varsity Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a parent judge with over 5 years of PF and some LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.
- Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
- Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
- Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
- Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
- My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
- I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.
Good luck and have fun!
- Be confident in round
- Be respectful of your opponents
- Please speak slow and clear
I am a parent judge who has judge previous national tournaments. If you spread then I will doc points, I have to be able to understand your arguments. The most important thing in round is clear and concise arguments, with good weighing in final focus. I do pay attention in cross-fire and factor it into my decision. I do not tolerate any racism, or trigger warnings. Any signs of that against your competitors and you automatically lose. Finally, this is supposed to be fun, so enjoy your time.
Also, any reference to the Simpson's earns you extra point Duh!!!!
Hi! I'm a junior at UC Berkeley studying CS & Business and I debated in PF for Gunn High School for 4 years.
I haven’t judged/done anything debate related in a WHILE and know nothing about this topic - old paradigm below
Experience (only competed in PF): 3x TOC, 2x Elims @Nats, Championed Berkeley, Semi-ed Stanford, Top Speaker Awards at Yale, Berkeley, etc.
I'm cool with all types of argumentation so feel free to do whatever you want - if you're planning on running a K or T please explain your argument thoroughly.
I am fine with speed but if you are going wayyy too fast or speaking totally unclearly, I'll let you know.
Have fun in cross and please stay calm and polite.
Some important things to note:
- read TWs if/when needed
- defense is sticky
- tabula rasa, tech > truth
- I will ALWAYS (unless you argue otherwise) presume first because I believe the first-speaking team has a structural disadvantage and significant time skew.
- pls weigh
- respond to all turns in 2nd rebuttal AND frontline
- engage with clash
- if you are extremely rude or offensive (racist, sexist, ableist etc.) in any way at all I'll drop you and give you 25 speaker points.
- I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to and it's a) essential to adjudicate the round and b) sounds misconstrued
- Sajan Mehrotra is my idol (if you want more specifics, please read his paradigm, which I believe is a link to someone else's paradigm lol)
Feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions after the round - I'm happy to give advice or further explain my decision at any time!
I am a parent judge, and have been judging mainly PF for 4+ years. I appreciate clear communication and respect for time. I prepare for the topic and like to be involved. I will accommodate any challenges due to online nature of the debate, but would appreciate if the participants have tested their connectivity etc.
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 2021
- 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 EDIT: if you are going to run theory, please for the love of god, run it well. don’t give me shitty theory shells to evaluate instead of substantive k/case debate. you may not suffer but i do
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 email@example.com 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>>>
dec '22 update:
Send case cards on the email chain so we don't have to wait a bunch for cards
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 (normal tournaments, do whatever, keep my progressive section in mind)
- 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.
-send me your case docs and set up an email chain with your opponents(lets save time)
- 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/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 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
- if i look confused, i probably am
- 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.
- Offense overviews in second rebuttal are annoying, but you do you
- 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 debated on the nat circuit in Public Forum for three years at College Preparatory School.
Qualified to Silver TOC 3 times.
I'm not opposed to you running any sort of theory, but I don't have much experience with it so make sure you explain well.
Be respectful to each other please.
Please weigh your impacts, it makes my job so much easier.
If you have any more specific questions, feel free to ask before the round!
everyone a so called free thinker until the cha cha slide comes on
firstname.lastname@example.org for any pre-/post-round inquiries
IMPORTANT: to get 30 speaks, email email@example.com the most stupid, cringey, physically painful to read joke possible and show me in round that you have done so. If the joke is truly bad, I will give you a 30.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.
I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.
Standing Conflicts: Coppell HS, Quarry Lane, Brookfield East (2021-), Ransom RT (2021-)
If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:
1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.
2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.
3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.
4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.
5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.
Online Debate Update:
Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.
All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.
Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.
Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.
I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.
K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".
I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).
Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.
I will never forget the day Shabbir saved me from the slums of India. I had grown up in a small village where opportunities were scarce and I was struggling to make ends meet. I was living in a tiny, cramped shack in the slums and barely able to afford the basic necessities for myself and my family.
One day, while I was scavenging for scraps to sell, I came across a flyer for a free workshop on entrepreneurship. I had always dreamed of starting my own business, but I didn't have the resources or the know-how to make it happen. So, I decided to attend the workshop and see what I could learn.
That's where I met Shabbir. He was the leader of the workshop and he had a wealth of knowledge and experience when it came to starting and running a business. He was kind, compassionate, and he truly cared about helping others succeed. He saw potential in me and he took me under his wing, teaching me everything he knew and providing me with the support and guidance I needed to get my business off the ground.
But Shabbir didn't stop there. He recognized that I had the potential to achieve even more and he encouraged me to apply to Hustlers University, a prestigious business school that could provide me with the education and opportunities I needed to succeed. I was hesitant at first, not sure if I was good enough or deserving enough. But with Shabbir's encouragement and support, I mustered up the courage to apply and, to my surprise, I was accepted.
Thanks to Shabbir's help, I was able to escape the slums and attend Hustlers University, where I received a top-notch education and gained the skills and knowledge I needed to succeed in the business world. And with Shabbir's guidance and support, I was able to turn my dream into a reality, starting my own successful business and leaving poverty behind for good.
I will forever be grateful to Shabbir for his kindness and his willingness to help me succeed. Without him, I don't know where I would be today. He truly saved me from the slums and gave me the chance to live a better life.
Competed in PF at LC Anderson in Austin, Texas on the nat circuit for 4 years
email@example.com for speech docs
debate is a game so tech>truth
run what you want; warranted arguments are true arguments until I'm told otherwise
substance is meh, run it at your own risk
I hate intervention and will avoid it at all costs so please I beg of you weigh (that means comparatively and not just using buzzwords like “magnitude” “scope” and moving on) weighing is essential to creating a lens for me to view the round under and achieving quality speaks.
speaks are usually 28-30 and based on argumentation>strategy>speaking
speed is cool, im not the fastest flower so send a speech doc if ur actually going fast and if ur gonna spread then id prefer you read from cut cards
theory is always fun but do it well, DAs are dope, plans and CPs aren't usually my thing but they cool, Ks are pretty great but if it is a more traditional Ks I'll probably be cool (Cap, Set Col, Security, fem etc.)
Debate is a competitive activity and so long as you follow clear rules (speech times, and obvious stuff), are not reading anything exclusionary or blatantly discriminatory, and are not a huge jerk then you can read whatever arguments you like.
Email chain and speech doc disclosure has really proven itself essential to me, if y’all don’t want to do so you don’t have to but it’s strongly advised and will be reflected in your speaks. However, this doesn’t mean I will use the speech doc or evidence sent to me to intervene, any problems y’all have with evidence should be aired out in speech and if there’s enough contest then I will check out the card and adjudicate myself. Otherwise, the doc is just for my clarity of y’alls arguments but should used by both teams to whatever advantage they can.
Framing is cool with me, but this should have a purpose, if I just hear "lives" or "cost benefit analysis" you will look like a clown. So make sure your framing narrows my ballot , otherwise its a waste
Weighing is so so so crucial plz weigh and that doesnt mean empty impact calc but real comparative and ballot direct weighing to make my job easier
I default to strength of link so give me the cleanest link to vote on or give me a reason to vote elsewhere
weighing is always nice to start early bc i find that its far more substantive that way but new weighing can be done in any speech unless its a more technical weighing mechanism in which case it should be explained earlier in the round
You can paraphrase but I'll like you a lot more if you don't especially since most paraphrased cards are just one sentence blips
email chain is highly encouraged and is great for improving ev ethics so see the speaks section for the email chain bonus
I don't like calling for evidence unless the text and credibility of the evidence is heavily contested and unresolved within the round, otherwise its your job to explain your evidence and its your job to disprove my opponents evidence ("call for it" is not an argument)
This is debate, you should be sufficiently explaining your arguments which means that unless an argument is grossly conceded, I should not hear excessively blippy link extensions
Without warrant extension and explanation, you don't have an argument
Generally the bigger the impact, the more you should be explaining but if I hear that any argument causes extinction without an explanation of how it does so, I'll be unhappy considering my fondness for extinction scenarios.
Theory is great, I'm cool with almost any theory so long as it is not marginalizing in any way but I love me disclosure, paraphrasing, email chain, or whatever you can think of but preround abuse shells should probably be read in constructive unless the abuse is revealed later in the round and in that case important to the round
I default competing interps, No RVIs
Don't read theory on novices (duh)
If you don't know how to properly extend and weigh theory, the round will be annoying and unfun so please don't do that
I can't guarantee that I'll understand of the more complex Ks that have been popping up in LD over the past few years but more common ones should be a safe bet and I’ll definitely enjoy hearing the K, IF RAN WELL
Once again, don't run these on novices
These are fine mostly, but make them purposeful, interesting and not easily permable bc otherwise you have wasted all of our time
PICs are trash don't read them, CPs should also compete with aff unless its funny as hell
Speech by Speech
Overall do whatever you want but its probably better to be line by line til summary then collapsing into a more big picture FF but line by line throughout isn't really an issue as long as you weigh
Constructives - do whatever u want
1st Rebuttal - offensive OVs/DAs are cool, needs to respond to any framing, underviews or prefiat arguments from constructive
2nd Rebuttal - everything for 1st rebuttals goes for 2nd but any and all turns/terminal D are conceded if dropped in second rebuttal so its probably strategic to start collapsing if you are getting dumped
1st Summary - any mitigatory defense that 2nd rebuttal doesn't respond to is sticky but terminal D and turns need to be extended, first summary can frontline 2nd rebuttal w new args but thats the last time i should be hearing new arguments
2nd Summary - extend all defense, offense and weighing you want in 2nd Final Focus, otherwise im not voting on it
1st Final Focus - no new args here except weighing, everything else should have been in summary
2nd Final Focus - everything should have been in summary but plz do not put everything in summary into this speech
Speaking is hard sometimes and it doesnt matter as much as argumentation and strategy but clear speakers are still going to get better speaks
speaks are adjusted based on prestige and competitiveness of the tournament
>27.5 = you were either very rude or morally reprehensible
27.5 - 28 = probably need a lot of work
28 - 28.5 = not bad but still could improve
28.5 - 29 = pretty solid debater, can probably break
29 - 29.5 = very good, probably wins an out round or two
29.5 - 30 = great debater and impressive to watch, late outs or chance to win the tourney and a great model for other debaters
I am a first timer as debate judge. I will learn along the way.
TLDR: Do what you want and believe is the best strat in the round. Just don't make up stuff, be nice to each other and have fun. Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated 3 years for IVC. Coaching/judging speech and debate for ms, hs, and college. Competed in mainly Parli, LD, Extemp, and Impromptu. Competed in both CC and 4-year tournaments. Mostly ran policy and typically lean towards policy debate when judging. Also like T (As Ayden Loeffler would say "layers and layers of theory"). But open to all types of arguments.
Weigh impacts. Let me know how you want me to weigh and evaluate. Love case debate, disads, counterplans, etc. Not the biggest fan of conditionality but you could run them. Speed is a tool but be clear. If your opponent wants you to slow down just slow down, especially with tournaments being online. Collapse so don't go for everything and please signpost.
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.
School: Brentwood High School
I AM DEFINITELY A LAY JUDGE.
I have never participated in, or judged, any Forensic activities other than PF debate.
When judging tournaments, I am most generally following the earliest guidance I received, which is to think in terms of which team is most persuasive with their aff/neg argument. Crucial to this is whether I can effectively understand the speaker. Many students are so focused on time & getting in maximum words, that they are very difficult to understand & they undermine their own research. Do they back up statements with factual references? Do they immediately offer cards with resources cited? Do they respond to the opposing team's arguments with thoughtful, relevant data, or do they revert to an unrelated item in their own "script"? Do they stay focused on the resolution, or follow tangential topics that muddy the question at hand?
I do take notes as I am listening to each round. These are often truncated due to the speed of the speaker. I include as much information as possible in my ballot comments.
When it comes to information, validity is important. I respect the true nature of any and all information being presented forward. Most importantly, while I want you to make me believe your views and opinions, I want to see that YOU believe in your views and opinions. I have a unique super power to be able to completely blank my mind of any and all bias and prejudice going into any form of debate. I am a blank slate. MAKE ME believe you. Regardless of how controversial the opinion may be OUTSIDE the world of Speech & Debate, INSIDE is a completely unbias viewpoint.
As long as you put forth your very best effort and I can see that, I will respect that. I will be more than happy to present to you any and all critiques I can to dictate why you scored how you did. I remember what it was like to be in your shoes, and I remember how much I thrived for information as to why I was marked the way I was.
I'm very flexible about what types of arguments you can run. I'm okay with kritiks ect. I evaluate arguments as they are presented.
I like a concise discussion of the evidence, not just cards thrown at each other. I find that in many rounds i judge, the discussion of whos value is better becomes irrelevant when the affirmative thesis doesn't even sound that convincing. This happens far too often. That being said when it doesn't, i like a good value debate. But this rarely happens.
Please be civil during cross examination.
I generally think the last aff speech should focus on voting issues.
1. I will call clear if required. If I have to do it more than once I will start docking speaks. the ableism k is legit.
2. please be nice. i like polite debaters.
3. if something bad happens like a computer dying i'm okay with temporarily delaying the round, just be honest.
I get lost in theory easily. Clear signposting and concise explanations are critical here. That being said I love a good theory round.
Kritiks - love em but i find a lot of them fall short on the alternative. please do not make this mistake
topicality - i dont think affs have to specify their agent.
evidence should be meaningful and relevant. you should not read evidence that is only tangentially related to your tag
feel free to ask me any questions
Hi, I'm David. I debated Public Forum for four years in high school. I can handle listening to above-average speed but definitely not anywhere near spreading level. Try to make sure to keep extending your warrants and impacts throughout your final focuses and summaries! I judge based on the flow but I don't know much about theory or K's so I'd probably just be lost if someone ran one of those. Good luck and have fun!
Hi, I am Darshan. I am a lay parent judge and I judge tech/truth. I prefer not to have too many regulations on debaters and I consider myself a flexible judge. As for evidence sharing, please have all your evidence ready to go before the debate so we don't waste time and please include me in the email chain. Signpost so I can have a clear flow. For high speaks make sure to be clear and order your speeches. Finally, if you are going to spread or speak remotely fast, please email me a speech doc or put a link in chat, @email@example.com.
Good Luck at the Tournament!
Hey all. I am Abhijit Dey, a judge from Dougherty Valley High School who judges PF and Extemporaneous Speech. So far I have been judging for 1.5 years at DV.
I will award speaker points to the most eloquent speakers and the ones with the most knowledge on the topic, as well as the ability to explain themselves smoothly. Speaker points are also based on your attitude- be nice to everyone in the round.
I like to see clear drawn out arguments and impacts in the final speech with comparison to opponents arguments. Please spend a lot of time explaining your argument to me throughout the rounds, if not, I may be lost if you go fast.
I will be taking notes but not fully flowing.
Use evidence how you would like but do not lie about it. If your opponents ask to see it send it to them immediately and continue the round.
I evaluate cross examination greatly. As someone with a congressional law degree, I believe that your arguments are made and set up in cross examination and you must be good with your questions.
The truth is extremely important but your arguments do not need to be 100% truthful if you are winning off of skill. However, if the round is close, I might not want to vote for you because your arguments are mistruth as I may be biased.
Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol
For TFA: I guess I'm an LD judge now
larp is gonna be your easiest way to win in front of me. I can guarantee with confidence that I will evaluate substance stuff correctly.
Beyond that...the guarantees get weaker.
I used to read a lot of theory in PF (disclosure and paraphrasing mostly).
I am familiar with most forms of progressive argumentation, at least in conceptual terms (i don't really see tricks or K debate often but I get the gist). I will attempt to evaluate anything so if you think uplayering is the most strategic thing for you to do go for it and don't blame me if it gets messy or you disagree with my decision.
good with speed just get a chain going
other than that ask questions
mostly pf stuff below
Debate is a game
K's, T, disads, theory, and any progressive args are fair ways to play
I endorse good...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them
Don't read theory bad IVIs in front of me (you're literally saying we should ban checks on abuse)
Instead, if you think you've encountered bad theory read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive
Default competing interps
I flow real good so follow the rules
No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read extinction framing or struc vi in final
Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped
If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore
You should frontline in second rebuttal
Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary
I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech
I give speaks based on strategy in round and technical prowess
Eagle High School ’18, UC Berkeley ‘22
I will try to be as unbiased as possible. This means that you should read what you are best at. I’ll let you know my preferences, but I can generally be convinced otherwise if you win the argument.
- Put me on the email chain.
- Tech over truth.
- Flashing/Emailing isn’t prep unless it’s unreasonable/I can see you prepping.
- Don’t steal prep.
- Don’t clip.
- Please do line by line.
- Evidence quality is relevant.
- Condense – don’t go for everything.
- 2nr/2ar should sum up the debate and why you won.
- Read them.
- Follow on is dope.
- Condo is good.
- 2NC counterplans are good.
- 50 states fiat is probably good. (you should have a fed key warrant)
- Pretty much any counterplan can be justified, but some, like CPs that compete on certainty/immediacy, for example, probably need more of a justification when challenged on theory.
- Most theory doesn’t seem like a reason to reject the team – if so, articulate that.
- Do it.
- Pretty undervalued.
- 2AC and 1AR overviews don’t need to be huge/repeat themselves.
- They’re cool.
- Turns case arguments are good.
- Plz do line by line.
- Do impact comparison – how do impacts interact with each other.
- Justify impact calculus. (i.e. why timeframe should come first, etc.)
- Do impact comparisons.
- Default to competing interps unless reasonability is won.
- Reasonability is good as an impact threshold argument – how much of T needs to be won.
- Fairness is an impact.
- TVAs should be utilized more. I tend to consider them as a CP and DA (obviously not an offcase position though).
- Switch side debate is solid.
- Can read them but need solid explanation/argumentation to beat T.
- Framework isn’t inherently evil.
- Generally, it is more convincing to actually defend your interpretation vs. theirs, rather than just spew DAs that aren’t distinct from each other without understanding the magnitude of your interpretation.
- Much of the overview could probably be done on the line by line.
- Need contextualization to the affirmative.
- “Root cause” claims don’t necessarily mean the K solves the case. You should explain that.
- I don’t think that arguments should contain things about the other debaters as individuals.
Any questions? Email me.
put me on the chain
Eagle High '18, UC Berkeley '22
I will evaluate anything. Don’t switch your style. However, I have a higher threshold for certain arguments. Here is a little of what I think about debate, but I can be convinced otherwise if you debate well.
- Tech over truth.
- Flashing/Emailing isn’t prep unless it’s unreasonable/I can see you prepping.
- Don’t steal prep.
- Don’t clip.
- Condense in the block and last speeches
Extinction outweighs, and I am persuaded by turns case with big disads. I think it is less useful dumping fifteen framing cards against disads about structural violence coming first, and more useful to answer the impacts to the disad to make it look silly.
read them, read more ev please, and read more warrants from that ev
I find that not enough teams read evidence to warrant claims, and evidence will usually be weighed over analytics. This being said, if there is a major logical hole in a disad, a good analytic can be very persuasive (cards help with that too).
Solid way to beat the case, I think they are underutilized by teams.
Generally- Condo good, pics good, 2NC CPs good, states good (find a fed key warrant). CPs that rely on certainty or immediacy like consult etc. generally are unfair. I believe judge kick is legitimate and think most 2nrs should say judge kick (if the 2AR doesn’t say “THEY DIDN’T SAY JUDGE KICK SO VOTE AFF ON PRESUMPTION” or something like that, then I will judge kick). CP theory is reject the arg.
Solid, win them, wins turns case, do impact work, read more cards. Paired with a CP, explain why CP doesn’t link.
I have a higher threshold for teams that go for the K. I think a lot of Ks need to be explained in context of the affirmative, and they aren’t (i.e. why turns case? Not just root cause hopefully unless you explain why the alt resolves their impacts). I generally think fiat is good and debate is a competitive activity, so don’t just assert that its not real and expect me to not evaluate the aff anymore. I don’t understand most high theory stuff and it needs to be explained to me as an argument. Floating PIKs are bad and the 1ar pointing that out will basically make it impossible for the 2nr to win.
K/planless affs and framework
Fairness is an impact, and debate is a competitive activity. I have a very high threshold for these types of affs. 1. Must have some sort of reason why doing your aff on the aff in debate is critical, 2. Please do some explanation of why the interpretation that you give on framework is good instead of just reading a list of disads to their interp that are all the same. Neg- Switch side and TVAs are very persuasive to beat aff offense. It’s important that both the 2NR and 2AR collapse heavily to a few solid arguments.
Have impact comparisons, read better cards. Read solid, precise T cards. I generally default to competing interps but don’t think it’s an all or nothing approach. If the aff wins a good defense of reasonability, I may view good defense as offense for the aff.
Do an email chain and send me speech docs. If I miss something because I didn't have a doc, that is on you
Universal Round Preferences
Run whatever you want, I will evaluate anything as long as it has implications towards the ballot. That means theory, kritiks, and whatever else you can come up with is acceptable (heads up, I don't think tricks implicate the ballot in any meaningful way but feel free to try). My ideal summary and final focus would be enough to understand the voting issues of the round without having heard prior speeches, meaning I expect WARRANTED extensions with impact calculus relative to your opponent's arguments. I will be flexible in terms of what constitutes sufficient extension based on the clutter of the round given a messy flow can always be recovered in the back half with the right strategic choices.
Speaker Point System
I start with a 28.5 as a sort of "zero-point", whereby impressive delivery can boost score and mistakes detract. I will be generally leaning towards better speaks as it really comes down to whether or not the speeches are fluent or choppy. Otherwise, small boosts ( such as to get a 30 ) would require distinctly persuasive performance. Offensive or belligerent behavior will be heavily penalized (be assertive, not aggressive).
If you want higher odds of getting good speaks, disclosing on the NDCA wiki and not paraphrasing will be an automatic aide since this has always been the standard in my head for creating a comprehensible/meaningful round.
Progressive Debate Notes
Please don't use progressive arguments to merely outpace your opponents with fancy jargon. If I feel as though a speech is nothing but a bunch of meaningless buzzwords, then the weight/significance I grant to those arguments on the flow will be equally meaningless
I like K's the most because I've had the time to consume a bunch of literature. I would say I am confident in evaluating anything you throw at me assuming you are very clear in how my signing of the ballot is supposed to operate with the theory being read. I would prefer links which are stronger than something like "state bad" or "futurity/prediction bad", so ideally something that connects back to the topic.
Please read theory in a structured format so that I can have consistency in evaluating it from the flow. I have the expectation that national circuit teams be somewhat versed in the formatting as the resources to learn it is increasingly available for free. With that in mind, I default to competing interpretations and no RVI's. I like disclosure theory (although I prefer you at least try and ask prior to the round). I like paraphrasing theory. If you run these arguments poorly, however, you could very well lose as I will do my best to keep my biases constrained. If you do happen to partake in the practices in a way that I perceive as disingenuous (i.e. purposefully obscure/incomprehensible disclosure), then these benefits may quickly turn negative.
They don't affirm or negate, leaving me just as capable of voting as I was before reading any of these arguments. If you want to read some truth testing arguments or that the affirmative has some textual obligation, that might work but I am VERY skeptical
--Counterplans & PICS --
Do your best to make any alternative fiat meaningfully competitive and educational. I don't really think almost any PIC competes and there are plenty of hyper generic counterplans that aren't educational. However, I will evaluate these arguments if they are properly defended and warranted.
I've judged a handful of tournaments starting in 2021, but no prior first-hand debate experience. So explain things very clearly if possible, and assume I do not know anything about the topic.
i competed for 4 years in pf
i did some stuff
i'm down for whatever in round
postround me if you think i'm wrong
i will almost always prefer good warranted analytics over bad unwarranted evidence
put me on the chain firstname.lastname@example.org
if its not on my paradigm I don't encounter it often or haven't formulated an opinion on it yet; just ask before round
1 - T/Theory, Policy
2 - Tricks
3 - Phil, K
4 - High Theory K, everything else
note for k debate
since i did bad event in hs I am not very read on majority of k lit, especially more obscure stuff
that being said read whatever you want -- it just might take me a little bit to fully understand it
No RVIs, competing interps, DTD
event is kind of not good and rounds are usually boring - i am definitely biased towards whoever has more entertaining round strat
disclosure is probably good and paraphrasing is probably bad
i am not very sympathetic towards trigger warning shells that preclude discourse and kill arguments - i'll evaluate but my threshold to DTD is much higher than with any other theory argument
evidence standards are very low atm, i lean heavily towards any bracketing/misrep/etc. shell
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.
Updated February 25, 2022
Ukraine note: I am normally pure tech over truth, but denying or willfully ignoring the invasion will result in a drop. Thanks.
Debate is an educational activity first and foremost. I will drop speaks, or at the most extreme drop the debater, for conduct which infringes upon the accessibility of the debate space. Namely, no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, or other discriminatory behaviors will be tolerated.
Most recently, varsity Parli coach at The Nueva School, CA. Not currently employed as a full-time coach.
Former coach at Menlo School, CA and Mountain View-Los Altos, CA. While in school, I was a TOC-level PF debater; I typically debated as part of Los Altos GV.
Short Form Paradigm: I flow and vote off the flow. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I care about evidence and weighing. When I vote, I look to the last speeches first, so you need to extend both your warrants and impacts to those speeches. If you can't tell me why you deserve to win, you don't deserve to win. Give me an easy path to the ballot.
COVID-19 Notice: This is a really weird time, and a really weird way, to be doing debate. Accordingly, for any round conducted virtually:
-I will be very forgiving with technical and related issues. Please speak up or message me in chat if you have literally any problems. Debate is an educational activity first and foremost and that needs to be preserved.
-This pandemic affects all of us in some way, and some of us very personally. Please conduct yourselves with the appropriate respect.
-I will not be minutely assessing speaker points in any round conducted virtually. Speakers on the winning team will receive 30s (or 30 and 29.9 if necessary) and the losing team will receive 29.9s (or 29.8 and 29.7, if necessary). I reserve the right to drop speaks for uncivil and/or discriminatory conduct, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.
Disclose: to inform the debaters who won the round.
Dropping: to vote against
Fiat power: the government's ability to declare that their plan will pass through appropriate channels into law, and be executed by the appropriate authorities. Fiat power does not absolve the government of the potential downsides of this process.
Flow: my notes of the round. I capture the essence of, or paraphrase, all content.
Framework: an argument about how the judge should assess the various content in the round. A common example is a net benefits or cost-benefit analysis framework, which adheres to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
K: short for "Kritik," a category of arguments which seek "to redirect the focus of debate to whether or not to reject ideas which support or uphold undesirable ideology, language, institutions, or world views" (Bennett).
Line-by-line: a way of organizing rebuttal and later speeches that addresses arguments and evidence in the order they were originally stated, rather than grouping them together in a condensed format, thematically or otherwise.
Non-interventionist: I do not insert myself in the decision of the round; I judge based on who provided the better arguments as recorded on my flow.
Plan: an organized description of the government's proposal for addressing the resolution. It must include a description of the timeframe, funding, and actor.
RFD: Reason for decision. This is provided in written form on the ballot, and frequently verbally immediately after the round as well.
Signposting: when a debater indicates which argument they are addressing, before addressing it.
Spread: a very fast style of speaking, frequently eclipsing 300 words per minute.
Theory (sometimes 'T'): a category of arguments about how the rules of the debate and how it is conducted, rather than arguments about the content of the resolution. "Friv" T, short for frivolous, is that which is only tangentially related, if at all.
Tabula rasa: lit. "Blank slate," meaning I come into the round without bias (as much as possible).
Tag teaming: a parli debate practice when in the middle of partner X's speech, they confer with partner Y, either in a hushed tone or with an audible statement by partner Y that is then repeated by partner X. Statements are not flowed unless they are said aloud by the partner whose designated speech it is. [My own opinion of this practice is quite negative, in the context of in-person debate. Virtual debate sometimes makes it necessary, and that's ok.]
1. I flow and vote off the flow.
Speed is fine, but if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for the argument. If you spread, I won't drop you automatically, I just won't be able to understand you and so I'll probably end up dropping you. I'll only say "Slow" a few times to try to tell you to slow down.
Signposting is key. I will write everything down, but if you're disorganized, my flow will be too, and that makes my job a lot harder.
I like to give oral RFDs and disclose if possible, but if I need extra time in order to examine my flow, that takes precedence over giving you a decision in the room. I will tell you you're not getting an oral RFD as soon as I realize I'll need the extra time.
2. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I will not complete the argument for you.
I am open to anything as long as it's within the rules of the event. For example, if you're running a plan in PF I'm perfectly open to that, just don't call it a plan (hint: use "advocacy"), and remember the neg doesn't have fiat power in PF.
3. Don't play around with evidence.
If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence (more so in PF than Parli).
I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at, if you do so within the round (all events included).
Empirics are king, but they are not the be-all end-all. Smart analytics can beat dumb cards, as Cayman Giordano says.
PF: Within the round you should cite, at minimum, author and date.
4. Weigh your arguments and tell me why you're winning the round. Explain why your voters are preferable. If you have a short-circuit voter or IVI that I should look at first, you need to tell me that clearly AND warrant why I should be considering it first.
5. Be civil, especially in crossfire. If you're questioning whether you should be sassy or not, don't be. I will detract speaks for rude behavior; this is an educational activity.
6. Off time road maps are fine if they're useful and brief. I do particularly like road maps before the Opp block and PMR speeches in Parli, but they're not necessary per se.
It is fine to ask if everyone's ready before you start speaking. It is fine to not ask as well.
1. I like to see high level warrant debate that doesn't get bogged down in "we have bigger numbers" impact debate. Talk about why your side makes more sense and why you have better proof than the other side does.
2. The second rebuttal should ideally address some of the content of the first rebuttal, even if it's only to weigh against it. If you've got a perfect 4 minute long attack on your opponent's case, that's fine, just be aware of the challenges you're going to face later in the round for doing that.
3. If you're going to go line-by-line in summary, tell me off time that you're going to be doing that. I don't care either way, but I prefer to be prepared for that.
4. Framework is not a voter. It is a way to evaluate voters.
5. Give me voters in final focus.
I will not extend arguments for you from the summary: if you want me to vote on it, you must say it in the final focus.
The second speaking team's final focus should address points, most preferably voters, from the first final focus. Extend your warrants and impacts.
6. I don't flow crossfire, but I do pay attention. Crossfire is first for clarifying questions, second for offensive/attacking questions, and third for defensive questions. It is not a time for ranting. It is not a time for restating your case. Having one debater drone on and on reflects poorly on both teams.
7. Speaker Points: Each speech is worth about 4 points and each crossfire one, roughly. Two speeches + two crossfires = 10 points (on the 20-30 scale). A 30 is reserved for practical perfection, and after my decade plus in debate, I can count on one hand the number of speeches I've seen that have deserved a 30. If you get below a 25, you've done something wrong, not just spoken poorly, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.
8. I'm tabula rasa, so I'm willing to hear theory and kritik arguments in Public Forum. That said, it's really not in the spirit of the format, so please don't do it if it's not justified. I'm also used to arguments of these sorts in high-level parli, meaning that they're well structured, warranted, impacted, etc., so I'd expect the same in PF. Unfortunately, most theory arguments I've seen in PF recently are undeveloped and poorly argued, so please be considerate.
I am tabula rasa and will vote on anything. Extend both your links and impacts.
That said, coming from a PF background, I prefer case debate. I also like evidence - most tournaments these days have internet prep; you should use it, but be careful with your sources. Full disclosure of topical bias: I'm trained as a political historian and evaluate cases on the flow as a historian would examine documents (I reiterate: be careful with your sources!). I have a regional speciality in Europe, in particular the EU, Germany, and former Warsaw Pact states (esp. CZ, SK, PL, HU), and topical specialties on populism, minority participation in politics, and transitional democracies. Also, if you're going to impact out to nuclear war, your warranting needs to be pretty darn solid, and you're probably going to need to make a case for why I should prefer your end of the probability/magnitude weighing game.
I will vote on all sorts of T, theory, etc, but please signpost and explain each part of the shell. In this case, as in others, theory is no good if there is no praxis to uphold those values, e.g. claiming education as a voter but failing to educate the other participants in the round about the supposed issue. This criterion includes stock components like education and fairness, and is especially true for non-stock. I like listening to bizarre and friv T for entertainment value, but the flow is a sheet of notes incapable of being entertained, and I vote off the flow.
I don't have a background in Ks, but I'll vote on them. I generally find them engaging, so don't shy away, but know that I do not have a high level of theoretical/technical knowledge about the kritik format, nor am I up to date in the latest developments in K debate on any circuit. If it's important enough for you to center the debate around, please consider it important enough to fully contextualize as well. Please do not run an identity K based on an assumption you make about your opponents' identities, which could lead to outing. Many identities are not visible.
Speaker points (if in person): I treat 27.5 as my average, scoring roughly on a flattened bell curve. Typically, the highest speaks I give on a regular basis at an invitational/flow tournament is a 29.2. The highest level tournaments may see a 29.5. I have yet to see a parli speaker deserving of a 30.
Tag teaming is absurd for high level debaters, and I'll deduct your speaks if you do it. Exceptions to this standard of deductions are granted for COVID and for teams of mixed experience (e.g. 8th and 12th graders together for a learning experience).
POIs are a courtesy. It is nice, but not necessary, for the speaker to take them. POIs need to be a question. If you don't ask a question, I will deduct your speaks.
POOs: I will comment on them in the moment, saying that the POO is either a) valid/sustained, i.e. the argument is new, b) invalid/overruled, i.e. that the argument is not new, or c) that I'll need to examine my flow more closely.
My name is Matt Gill (He/Him), I am a Junior at Texas Christian University where I served as the administrative officer for the speech and debate team. I currently compete in NPDA and various I.E.s, in high school I focused on PF. I can judge all debate, but I am most comfortable in PF and Parli.
Make an email chain before the round and include me. email@example.com
In Person Rounds - Since I am scheduled to judge some in person rounds, I felt this was a necessary addition. In the interest of protecting people and making everyone feel welcome, I am going to forgo hand shakes with me and your opponent. I don't want debaters to feel like they have to shake hands with me if they are uncomfortable, so I want to just do away with it all together. If you don't read this in time and shake my hand it is fine, I will shake your hand, but I also don't want any debater to feel pressured into a situation in which they are uncomfortable. Rest assured my ballot has never and will never be won or lost in the pre/post round niceties. Keep each other safe!
The other important note about in person tournaments is the email chain. I don't really want to read evidence off of your laptops, so please include me in the email chain so I can read evidence when you ask me to (and do ask me to read evidence! Lots of rounds come down to miscut evidence). In that same vein, if I am being shown evidence you may always assume that I want it in context, not just a cut card.
Trigger Warnings - I appreciate trigger warnings. Failing to do so won't hurt you, but it definitely helps me as a judge to know what kind of sensitive content I need to expect to hear. Barring extreme circumstances, I won't tell you not to run the argument, I just prefer to know before your speech.
Speed - Speed is fine depending on the event. PF is meant to be for the public, so I will frown upon speakers who use speed excessively in the format. Bottom line is if you are going fast enough that I need to read along to understand, it's too fast. That said, I will say clear if I am having a hard time following, so you don't need to guess at whether your speech is too fast. I vote off my flow, so make sure I can understand what you are saying enough to flow well.
K's - K's are fine as long as they are well made and well presented. K's are a very important piece of agency and expression within debate, please don't abuse them just for a win; your K should truly justify bypassing topical arguments. (PF specific) I am also of the opinion that, if you are planning on running a K, you should disclose that to your opponent. This is because PF is constrained with regards to time, so fairness would dictate that disclosure is good in this circumstance. Please remember the role of the ballot or I have no way to evaluate your K.
Theory - Theory is fine, but so is RVI so make sure it isn't frivolous. I don't generally vote for disclosure theory in PF, especially if you didn't ask for disclosure before the round.
Tabula Rasa - Tech over truth. I don't ever intervene for topicality; an argument is topical until I am told otherwise. I have had teams run plans in PF and I have voted for it, but only if the other team buys in (I.e. I give negative access to counter plans/perms). That said, the instant a team runs theory or says teams should follow rules, I have no choice but to accept that theory. Therefore, I would recommend that you not run a plan in PF (this example was largely to demonstrate how closely I subscribe to Tabula Rasa). I will decide the round totally off of the flow, but I would definitely prefer if you didn't take massive creative liberties with general definitions.
Style - Keep simple organization so it's easy to see how the debate progresses. The more sub-points etc. the more clear I want you to be in sign posting. If I am going to need a separate sheet of paper for an argument, let me know before the speech. I like to flow overviews on a separate sheet, so please tell me before if you are running an overview. That said, I am not a fan of overviews that could be their own contention (turns and case turns are exempt from this judgement). If your argument is that useful as offense, read it in your constructive. Clash with your opponent. Impact your arguments and weigh them against your opponents so I know exactly how and why to vote at the end of the round (write my RFD for me). Be kind and courteous, debate is so much more fun when everyone gets along (especially courteous/kind debaters will see their benevolence reflected in their speaker scores, and vice versa).
Speech Events - I am super excited to judge speech events! I will leave detailed feedback on the ballot, so don't worry about changing anything specifically for me. The one note I will make is about impromptu; the event is about improvising, not working in a canned speech. I will weigh relevance heavily in my decisions, so if your topic is Florida, please do not use Flo-Rida to talk about the future of rap culture and completely forget about the topic.
Questions - Feel free to ask questions before the round.
I coach for the College Preparatory School. I debated for two years for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS. In my senior year I won Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.
Add firstname.lastname@example.org AND email@example.com to the email chain. Please label email chains properly. Ex. "TOC R1 F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS."
Tech>truth. 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. 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———
I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. 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 1 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.
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.
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 ran 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 former partner, "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. I'll evaluate it, but 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 judge for these rounds. I'm more familiar with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism than anything else.
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'm a current law student but am a former high school debate competitor and collegiate speech competitor. I have the greatest amount of coaching and judging in experience in LD but have judged PF for the last five years.
I keep a detailed flow of the round and ask that warrants be extended on key arguments you extend throughout the debate.
Please be respectful in crossfire/cx.
I find rounds work best when debaters also time themselves and cross time their opponents.
In order to reduce the likelihood of any technical issues, I ask that you take necessary precautions (e.g. quitting programs not needed on your computer, testing your WiFi connection, etc.).
Please feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round starts so we begin on time. Thank you, and good luck!
My name is Kyler (he/him/his), and I'm an undergraduate majoring in philosophy and economics at The University of Tennessee-Knoxville. I did speech and debate for four years in high school, and I have been judging tournaments since I graduated in 2018. I absolutely love speech and debate and think that it is one of the best activities you can do to prepare for college and for life.
Judging framework: I work to be a tabula rasa or "blank slate" judge. I use whatever framework debaters agree on to weigh the round, and I will hold any claim you make during a round as true until your opponent contests it. I look for logical, concise arguments and clear speaking/communication.
Also, while the goal of a debate is to win, you should still be kind to one another. Any personal attacks or discriminatory language will result in an automatic loss.
I am a parent judge. This is my second year of judging local and national tournaments.
I base my decision off of my flow. Here are some things that I look for:
- Be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude.
- No spreading, please speak slowly and clearly.
- No theory or kritiks please.
pf and ix (for westlake (‘21)), did ok. if you have questions comments or concerns email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
run any arg you want* as long as claim warrant and impact are all extended throughout the round. responses need to be warranted implicated and extended; weighing needs to be comparative.
*run what you want unless it is harmful. no win should come at the cost of your respect for other people both in the round and in the arguments you discuss.
- note on disclosure: i only evaluate disclosure theory if you prove to me that you asked your opponents to disclose and they said no. no win should come through humiliating your opponents; if you truly want to spread good norms then you would ask them to disclose first and teach them to disclose if they don’t know how.
- note on speaks: automatic 30s unless you are rude or mean… treat others as you wish to be treated
- note on discussing sensitive topics: read a trigger warning and have an alternative case ready if you plan to read graphic descriptions of sensitive topics
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.
(Last Updated 6/10/21)
General (read in addition to specific event):
I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.
I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.
I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.
I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.
I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.
I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.
I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.
I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.
You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.
I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.
I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.
I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.
I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.
I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.
Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.
I am a lay judge. If you make everything clear to me and speak at an appropriate pace, I will vote for you. Please have organized speeches, so I can make sure to catch all of your arguments and evidence. Please weigh in last speech, and make it easy for me to vote for someone. Most importantly, please be respectful to each other and have fun!
Hey debaters! Here is some information about me that I think is important to know before you start the round:
- I am a lay judge.
- Assume I'm completely new to the topic so whichever side convinces me the best will be voted for.
- Please refrain from spreading, I will most likely miss arguments if you spread.
- Speak clearly with logic and analysis, not just evidence. Evidence is useful in many situations, but always include logic and warrants to back it up, it's useless to just read cards during a debate round.
- I expect both teams to be timing themselves during your speeches and I'm fine with a 10-15 second grace period for each speech just to finish up your last thoughts.
- Please remember to be respectful at all times during the debate round especially during cross x, I will not accept behavior that is not respectful.
Finally, remember to have fun! :)
Email for email chains: email@example.com
I competed in public forum at American Heritage in high school (2014-2016) and policy at FSU (2016-2018). Any questions you have specifically about my paradigm can be asked before the round.
- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. I probably have not read your specific K lit if you go that route, make sure you explain it. If your theory is frivolous its a lot less likely to win, but go for it if you are confident in winning it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot" and it is different in every speech, I probably will not evaluate it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot", you should be able to recite it from memory without changing the phrases multiple times in the debate. Do not read a "role of the ballot" if you do not plan on keeping it consistent, it will result in worse speaker points.IF you're reading a K or other critical argument, explain your authors warranting, don't just assert an extension without explaining and characterizing your authors warranting to the specific debate.
- If neither team has any risk of offense at the end of the debate, I will default neg on presumption. I ALWAYS prefer to vote off a risk of offense over presumption, your probability analysis could win you the round. Provide a contextualization for your impact, and attempt to maintain a narrative throughout the later half of the debate. You will be a lot more convincing.
- Generally have been tech over truth. In PF there are significant time constraints to explain intricate link chains to arguments that may maintain more "tech" than "truth" in their nature--try to stray away from these. My threshold for responses to arguments that are more "tech" than "truth" is pretty low. If there is a large difference in strategy that allows for one of the "tech" over "truth" arguments to win on the flow, that is where I will vote. (eg. Team A reads a nuclear war scenario, Team B only responds with vague variants of "MAD", as long as Team A responds and extends warrants, this is still a tech over truth win)
- Sound logic is better than crappy cards. I think the main determinant of good quality evidence is not where it comes from, but the warranting the author uses to justify either their research or logic-based conclusions. The "why" in evidence is more important than where it is from unless a debater can prove that where the source is from be grounds for the warranting to be undermined.
- Cx is binding.
- If you disagree with my RFD, feel free to postround respectfully, I will be glad to answer any questions or give my thought process when deciding as long as the discussion remains civil.4
harker 21 -> ucla 25 and did some pf in hs
set up an email chain before round and add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.
NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.
THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.
THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.
For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.
TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.
KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.
Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.
EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.
Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.
STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.
I'm a college freshman in and from the Bay Area and debated for 5 years throughout middle and high school. I primarily competed in Varsity Public Forum (3 years) but participated in Varsity Lincoln Douglas as well (2 years).
I judge on logic supported heavily by credible evidence. Please do not spread. I will flow and time speeches but will not cut you off. Respect your opponents; do not raise your voice. Yelling is not convincing. I enjoy a good cross-examination. I'm comfortable with framework debates and am open to hearing counterplans in LD only. Weighing is critical, especially in summary and final focus.
I will award speaker points as I see fit based on your rhetoric and eloquence and will not discriminate on the basis of accents/speaking disabilities.
Good luck and see you in round.
I am judging for Dougherty Valley.
Here is how I judge:
Number 1: Don't talk fast and do not spread. Be loud and clear so I can make proper notes.
Number 2: Please be polite, don't scream at your opponent.
Number 3: Please provide a definition and make sure to explain everything you say clearly.
Number 4: Make sure to give an off time road map.
Number 5: Quality over quantity
Number 6: Offense over defense
Number 7: Weigh properly, impact is critical
Number 8: Probability of your argument is also key for my ballot
Number 9: Look professional
Number 10: Have fun
I am a parent judge who has been involved in debate for almost two years now. I am a lay judge, but I do flow. I don’t mind speed, as long as you speak clearly. Try to avoid spreading if possible. Please be respectful to your opponents: I am much less likely to vote for you if you are rude during the round. Good luck!
TLDR; Debate well, run any and all arguments you believe in, be nice, respectful and have a good time. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity. People often forget that.
I did PF and LD throughout high school, and did Parliamentary and British Parliamentary in college.
I am fine with just about any argument you can run. Clearly explain links, impacts, and solvency. I think Theory, k's, topicality and just about anything else you can run is perfectly fine and can keep debates kind of fresh. If you like an argument, and run it well, chances are I'll like it too.
However, if you are running theory, K's, or topicality in PF you will have a harder time because every time I've seen these in a PF round they have been missing key parts mostly due to the short times of PF. I may still vote for it, but consider what types of arguments are best based on your time constraints.
More basic debates can also be great. Make sure you clash and address the other teams case. Find ways to create offense and don't spend all your time on defense.
Speed is fine, but try to be as clear as possible. In our unfortunate digital circumstances there are more ways to miss what you're saying than there used to be so I think erring on the side of clarity is always better.
I don't flow CX. If there is something important that happens in CX that you deem is massively important to your case please bring it up in your future speeches.
The things I want to see in a debate are typically very clear links, impacts and weighing. You need to tell me exactly how I should vote and why. Debate rounds are always clearer and have more clash when each side can very easily explain their link chain to the impacts, and why those are more important whether it be magnitude, timeframe, scope, or probability.
Finally, just be nice to each other. Debate is a game and I think it should be fun. Be funny, add jokes, do whatever you need to help your arguments but also have fun during the round.
If there is anything I didn't cover here feel free to ask me before our round starts!
I am a parent judge from Colorado, where debate is traditional.
I am an attorney who will respect strongly warranted and persuasive argumentation.
Please speak clearly (and not too fast!), thoroughly explain your arguments, and focus on analyzing the arguments made by both sides in the round.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., will not be tolerated.
Hi y'all! I debated PF with a good mix of district and circuit tournaments all 4 years of high school.
- be fair & respectful in and out of your rounds and stay within time limits of speeches and prep. going about 10 seconds over in speeches is generally ok, but I'll stop flowing anything after that.
- everything collapsed on during final focus should be extended through summary. give me a way to weigh the round; please don't leave me to decide how to evaluate everything. you also don't have to wait til summary/final focus to start weighing impacts!
- in terms of frameworks, I'd prefer if you gave me one and actually used it throughout your round, but otherwise I'll default to cost-benefit analysis.
- for me to buy an argument, you have to explicitly state your warranting and links, otherwise it's harder to access any impacts. doesn't hurt to extend warranting all the way to final focus.
- PLEASE SIGNPOST! off-time roadmaps are also fine.
- if you're the second team giving the rebuttal, you should frontline your case, though i'll still flow through frontlines brought up in summary. but it'll probably be harder to for everyone in the round to respond to it.
- i think reading full cards can be a waste of time, paraphrasing is ok as long as you cite it. but don't just cite the card and expect me (or your opponent) to know what you're talking about.
- i'm a fan of using frameworks to run creative arguments! using the framing actively during the round and to weigh impacts keeps debate interesting :)
- most importantly, have fun!! debate is a such a cool and engaging activity and our primary reason for being here is to learn about these topics analytically and in depth.
I have been judging since 2018 in 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. I do not prefer spreading/speaking fast.
i am a parent judge. please add me to the email chain and before speeches, email both your case and rebuttal documents so that I can better read/follow along and understand everything in online debate: email@example.com.
please speak clearly, and be respectful during crossfire.
Strike me if you are not sending speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal. This needs to be done BEFORE the speech and over EMAIL.
I am currently the Head Public Forum Coach at The Quarry Lane School
Quartered at the TOC and have done some policy @ Wake if that matters to you
Current Conflicts: Quarry Lane (2020-present), Bergen County (2021-2022), North Broward (Alumni), Ardrey Kell (2020-2021), Flanagan (2020)
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Lets skip GCX (take 30 seconds of prep each) *Both teams need to agree
It's PF, I don't need a 30 second roadmap
-Turn on your cameras
-Email Chains should be standard
-Use the chat
-"I had connection problems" is a fine excuse to clarify arguments in the debate. Don't abuse this though.
Impact calculus is the most important part of public forum. Explaining why your impact is more significant than your opponents will win you the round if you win your links. Explaining evidence is a part of extending it. For example, "Extend Ferguson 14 from our case" is not an extension, but "Extend Ferguson in 14 who explains that the BRI has been responsible for pushing 40 countries into high debt because countries cannot pay back loans" is an extension. Don't drop arguments. Dropped arguments are extremely difficult to recover from, and in the majority of cases, if a team weighs and implicates their argument, it's game over. I will be flowing on my computer using excel.
2nd rebuttal should answer the 1st. First summary needs to extend defense given the 3-minute summary change. Cohesion from summary to final focus is vital in gaining offense from your argument. I don't love new argument spins in final focus, but if it was brought up in cross and is something I could see coming it is not considered new. I presume the status quo unless you argue otherwise.
I will disclose my decision in every debate. I will do my best to give the best feedback possible and provide insight into why I made the decision I did. If you have any questions about the round please feel free to ask or message me on facebook after the debate.
Read (kritiks, theory, disads, counterplans, etc). For background, I come from a policy centric team and have experience debating kritiks and running theory. I like hearing unique arguments, feel free to read them. I do think disclosure and reading cut cards are good norms. Ultimately, I am cool with any kind of argument you decide to read, at any pace you decide to read it at as long as it is carded.
Stealing prep time is never a good idea. If you see your opponents stealing prep, call them out.
Paraphrasing in public forum is OK. However, in an effort to create better evidence ethics in public forum, I encourage teams to read cards. If you read cards in constructive, I will give you a slight (+.2) speaker point bump. For another slight (+.2) speaker point bump, in an effort to create better evidence ethics, disclose your case on the NDCA PF wiki. This is not a requirement by any means, but if you decide to do either or both of these things let me know. A guide on how to disclose can be found here
I will also call for all evidence that you tell me to in a debate round.
Average speaker points (2020-2021 Season): 28.4
Average speaker points (2021-2022 Season): 28.3
I am a flexible judge who comes to each debate with an open mind. I am open to all sorts of arguments, provided that sufficient work is done to prove why that's true and important to the debate. Things I generally look out for include:
I believe that the most compelling arguments are those that show probability that a particular outcome will happen. Debaters usually focus on analyzing impacts without proving that those impacts can and will happen. This often leads to unengaging arguments that may not be as relevant to the given motion as required.
Debate is a comparative sport. I credit teams that are able to sufficiently engage with what their counterparts said. Teams can engage however they want, provided that the engagement is sufficient to disprove/mitigate what has been said.
Teams should compare the strengths of their arguments with their counterparts' to prove why their case is better. Weighing helps me as a judge to see the conclusions that each team is trying to make.
I expect teams to go beyond making assertions by providing reasons why the arguments they make are true. A well mechanized argument will show me why a claim is true, and why it is significant to the debate. This also applies to rebuttals, provided that the claim being rebutted was well mechanized.
I value arguments that are presented in a way that can be understood by a reasonable average voter. That means that arguments should be presented in a simple way, the relevance of examples should be explained, and the speech(es) should be consistent throughout the debate.
I competed for Quarry Lane for two years and I debated for Dougherty Valley for 2 years, all of it in PF. I've gone to major tournaments like Berkeley, Stanford, Golden Desert, etc, and qualified to TOC.
I did not debate CPs/theory/K's/other similar argumentation and I have little experience with them, but I can vote on it if you explain it well enough.
Go slower than usual because of online. Slow down to emphasize analytics. I can keep up with moderate speed, but keep in mind that all I have done is PF. I have no topic knowledge.
Please put theory into formal shells, NOT paragraph form.
I'm fine with 1 condo. I can be persuaded against it if there are more.
I probably won't vote for trix or Phil.
I don't presume. I flip a coin.
Make speech docs during prep time.
Email or flash cases.
Card clipping and violation of evidence ethics is an automatic loss.
Tech > Truth
I don't intervene but debater math makes me want to.
Please have a content warning for any sensitive arguments and have a way for debaters in the round to anonymously ask you not to read them if necessary (phone number, google form, etc).
You can talk as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I will say clear if I don't understand you. You can also send me a speech doc at email@example.com. Share the speech doc if you have any concern that I will not understand you.
Say the card author and date whenever you want to extend it. Have the cut card if anyone calls for it. If it takes more than 3 min to find a card, I will drop speaks.
Do not paraphrase cards to say whatever you want them to. If nobody tells me to call for a card, I have no reason to.
I will buy any argument as long as it is warranted.
Defense is sticky so defense that is not responded to in the next speech flows through.
Turns need to be implicated when they are read. If you card dump a bunch of blippy responses in Rebuttal, I'm more inclined to not vote for you if the warrants are not explained.
Please collapse in later speeches. Please sign post in all speeches.
Any argument being extended into Final Focus needs to be in Summary or else I won't vote for it. I also need to hear weighing in Summary and Final Focus to know who to vote for. Do not make new responses to defense that was not responded to in second Rebuttal. Do not make new arguments in second Final Focus.
If you make a racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist/etc comment, I will drop you and lower speaks.
I will give high speaks unless you give me a reason not to. I will give even higher speaks if you're funny.
Feel free to email me any questions at firstname.lastname@example.org or ask me before the round.
NOTE FOR BERKELEY: IF YOU MEOW AT MY CAT AND SHE MEOWS BACK YOU GET A 30. IDK IF SHE WILL SHE DOES LIKE HALF THE TIME. UP TO YOU IF YOU WANNA TAKE THAT RISK
hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. email@example.com 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 was a 2n at wake forest for 2 years 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'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 are lame, frivolous theory in pf is probably the stupidest thing i can think of lol
oh also i'm judging policy now lol -- what i said above is still true -- was a 2n at wake, haven't debated in like a year, my partner and i quartered ceda reading black feminist lit on the aff and cap on the neg, that's a pretty good indicator i think of the types of arguments i enjoy voting on and judging the most. i'll judge a policy round if you want to have it obviously, i also have been coaching pf 2 years now so my ears are at least a little more attuned to util impacts than previously. in the same way that critical teams are expected to justify why they are moving away from the topic, i believe policy teams should be justifying why they are choosing to debate the topic in clash rounds -- this doesn't mean i'll hack for Ks -- it just means that the same standards apply because i view topicality/its reading as a speech act and i'm not sure why the fact that a speech act is also a procedural would mean i should disregard its implications or its context. that being said, my sophomore year my partner and I won R1 at the season opener reading disclosure, i'm willing to vote on whatever. if you're racist or talk down to women or misgender your opponent or do some other messed up stuff without both making good faith attempts to repair the potential for a safe debate and apologizing without reservation for said messed up act you will get an L20. one time my partner and i debated this guy who would only respectfully talk to me and refused to listen to her whatsoever, talking over her constantly. when we called him on it he said it was because of his adhd and then kept doing it (as a psych major i have never heard of adhd that only appears when you're talking to women!). please use that as an example of what NOT to do.
in the same way i try to hold policy teams to higher standards -- if you're reading a k -- i'm not just gonna hack. justify why the aff is necessary in debate, this round particularly, what my ballot does, make and justify spill up claims, have an awesome theory of power, make material arguments (the best thing i ever learned as a debater is how to read cap links that are 100% disads to the aff -- do that)
good luck have a great round hope it's fun feel free to ask me any questions i am happy to answer them
if you're curious -- my thoughts on debate right now are most influenced by asya taylor, darius white, jacob smith, and the wake coaches who read Ks when they debated (jgreen also)
for k teams -- i am in big support of high schoolers reading k's, i think it's super educational and definitely made me a lot of who i am now (ew. hate typing out that debate made me part of who i am, kinda gross), in support of that practice please feel free to after rounds ask me any random questions you have about lit or strategy, even if it's not related to the round you just had -- i'll do my best to give you some help! it's my understanding these tournaments are designed in part to increase debate access/let teams that might not otherwise get to too many nat circuit tournaments attend -- i coach a lot and have worked at ld camps the past few summers, i also understand wake has a very genius/expensive coaching staff and would be happy to redistribute some of what i've learned from debating here down because truthfully the coaches here are incredible and it should not just be a few debaters at random colleges getting their knowledge!!
I do not have much experience with judging.
I am a lay judge and I will be considering the following points:
- Please speak slow, clear, and loud.
- Please articulate your ideas well and in an orderly fashion.
- Do not be rude or arrogant during cross.
- Please do not be overly repetitive and bring up the same point several times to fill time.
- Logic is very important.
Debated for Campbell Hall.
CROSSFIRE IS ABSOLUTELY BINDING AND A CRUCIAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE ROUND. I'VE WITNESSED ROUNDS THAT ARE WON AND LOST IN CROSS.
NO TRICKERY OR FOOLING AROUND. ANY OF THAT RESULTS IN A DQ. NO NEGOTATIONS.
HAVE FUN THAT'S WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT!
FOR MORE DETAILS ON HOW I VIEW THE PERFECT DEBATE, SEE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1FfufgzCgM.
In general I am flexible about your debate/speech style. But below are some of my preferences:
- Being respectful instead of being hostile
- You could speak fast but make sure it is clear to everyone
- Make sure to have clear logic and evidence in your speech
Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.
My email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC
My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.
I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.
To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.
I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.
So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.
Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:
Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.
I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.
Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.
I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.
Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.
Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.
College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.
lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.
So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.
Worlds @ Coppell:
I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.
To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.
Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:
I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.
Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.
Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.
PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:
A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);
B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES
C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.
D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.
Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.
POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.
If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!
I competed in both speech & debate on CHSSA (CA) and NSDA circuit for 4 years with a focus in platform events, but am familiar with all IEs.
I also competed in PF and Parliamentary but consider me a lay judge as I do not particularly like spreading. I will flow, however. As someone heavily trained in performance and delivery, I will take yours into account.
We may be virtual, but continue to behave appropriately and professionally.
I privately coach elementary, middle & high school speech and debate, as well as teach private speech writing and speech delivery classes. Contact me at email@example.com for any comments, questions or concerns.
my email is firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains.
i debated pf for four years at nueva with anjali ramanathan and graduated in 2020. in the fall i'll be attending uchicago!
my view of debate is very similar to anjalis and she does a good job explaining her paradigm here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/postings/judge.mhtml?judge_id=1287777&tourn_id=16664
tl;dr: i'll hear basically anything unless its problematic, i like clear narratives/link stories with weighing, i don't mind a little speed but i'm also usually pretty tired so know that it doesn't always work in your favor, and have fun because then i'll have more fun :))
do let me know if you have any questions and i'd be happy to answer them!!
The three things I prioritize are clarity, professionalism, and you helping me follow your arguments. Don't use sticky defense, don't bring up new arguments in summary and FF, and stick to questioning in CX. Please don't turn grand CX into a four-way shouting match; that's stressful for everyone.
Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:
I am a parent judge with 3 years of novice, JV and Varsity PF experience.
Speak as fast as you would like, but make sure it is comprehensible. I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending with body language. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
I will be objective, and my decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. Stay focused and debate on the opponents’ arguments or strengthen your arguments.
I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards email@example.com as I like to review them as well.
Good luck and have fun!
I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.
1. The topic/Message being made clear
2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed
3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate
4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known
5. Points being correctly attacked and built up
6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions
I judge based off of:
1. Topic/Message made clear
2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story
3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments
4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene
5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.
My name is Brianna McGee and I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.
Im a lay judge speak slow and give good argumentation.
I need docs to understand and articulate arguments send them to firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks and I hope for a good debate!
Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)
Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).
Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.
Address for the email chain: email@example.com
Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm
Public Forum Paradigm
- If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts on your own case.
- Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
- Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
- Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
- No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
- I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.
1. Summary extension
If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes conceded link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.
1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild
Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.
2. Offense defense
Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.
3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech
This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.
First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.
Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.
Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.
4. Narrow the round
It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.
5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.
1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.
2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.
In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.
5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.
Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.
I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.
Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.
My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:
Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").
Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.
Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.
Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.
Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.
If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.
8. Evidence citations
You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.
9. Speaker points
See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.
10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic
Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.
Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.
I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.
Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.
I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.
If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.
Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.
Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.
I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.
I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.
Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.
First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.
Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.
I'll go speech by speech.
1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?
1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.
2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.
Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.
Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.
I am a parent judge. I have judged LD and PF in the past 5 years and like both formats.
Please email me your cases so that I can better understand what you are speaking in a virtual round: firstname.lastname@example.org
I appreciate well constructed arguments and clear speaking. There is no need to show over aggression in your speeches. Please don't spread but if you do that there is a chance I may not hear you and flow. Yes, I do flow a little though if it is in the context. I consider cross-X sessions also in my evaluation, so be clear when you answer and respectful when you question. Do not interrupt your opponent excessively and let them speak. If I am unable to hear clearly I will not be able to give any credits.
Please respond to all of your opponents arguments with proper justifications. Have proper evidences in support. Be truthful. If I find any indication of falsifying any evidence, that's a disqualification.
Off-time roadmaps are OK. Please stay within the time limits for your speeches.
Be well behaved and respectful to your opponent(s) and enjoy the debate rounds, good luck!
My name is Madison Moore and I am currently a first-year at American University. I am double majoring in legal studies and economics while pursuing a minor in art history. I am also on the Mock Trial team here at AU. I competed in PF in high school all four years and made it to the national circuit. I took a gap year before coming to college so it has been a little bit since I've been on the circuit. Below is my approach to judging debate, let me know if you have any questions:
1. I am a flow judge. If you do not flow it through, you cannot win on that point.
2. This goes for things that are dropped during rounds as well. If you drop it, I will catch it and if you try to flow it through, it won't work.
3. I will listen to cx for comedic reasons but I will not flow any of it. If you want me to know about it, say it during your speech.
4. Summary and final focus should complement each other. You should know what you are going for by the time summary comes around and the final focus should write my ballot for you.
5. You must respond to turns or else they become offense for the other team.
6. You can drop parts of your case! Go for what makes sense. Do not waste your time.
7. You have to give me warrants. If I can still ask why, the warrant is incomplete. DO NOT just card dump. Tell me why.
8. Be nice to each other. Refrain from derogatory, sexist, homophobic, and offensive remarks. This is a sure-fire way to lose points and potentially the round.
9. Have fun. Debate is not about winning. It is about getting better and learning how to effectively argue. I will provide comprehensive feedback either orally or written and am happy to clarify.
This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.
I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.
I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.
That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.
In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.
I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.
And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.
So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.
I am not a lay judge, so I will be judging your points.
I may or may not flow, but please go in order. I will look for who has won arguments-wise, or I will go by who has better proved the standard (If there is one). I will particularly be looking at weighing impacts. Personally, I find weighing impact super important, so please do that. My expectation for each part of the debate has been posted below
First Speaker Speech
- Pretty Standard
- You have fifteen seconds to finish your speech after your time is up
- Ask actually questions
- Don't just waste time asking stupid questions
- If your question is related to cards or sources, just check the card in Prep, don't ask them to read it out loud.
- 3 minutes long
- I will pay special attention to this speech; use it well!!!
- Weigh, Weigh, and Weigh! If your opponents don't weigh, and you do weigh, you will automatically be put up in my decision making for the round.
- 2 minutes long
- Anything you mention in this speech I will consider in my decision, so if you had something important, bring it up again here
- Like summary, Weigh!!!
- 3 minutes
- You can ask for cards here
- If your opponents ask for a card, you have 1.5 minutes to bring it up, or it will be dropped
- If I find your sources fishy or suspicious, I will check them
- If I catch you with fake sources, you will lose the round
- Don't search anything up during the debate
- Don't make things up during the debate
Speaker Points / Cheating
- Being formal and good etiquette will win you some speaker points
- If you get heating up or start yelling you will lose speaker points
- There is a fine line between provoking and straight-up bullying
- If you cheat in any way, You will get a significant deduction in speaker points.
- I will not tolerate, sexual, racial, or offensive statements of any manner.
- Any offensive comments will not only cause you to lose the round, but I will also report you to the tournament officials or tabroom.
Good luck with it and have fun with the debate!
*Any other information I bring up at the start of the debate is included in my paradigm.
I am a lay judge who prefers to see clear and persuasive arguments that convince me to vote for you.
I am a new judge, but have some understanding of Public Forum.
Please speak at a conversational pace, so that I can understand you.
Please be respectful and polite amongst each other and your opponents.
* Keep track of your own prep time.
Quick rough-up, you can ask for more detail in round.
Analysis is a primary interest, most notably your links. I want a deeply thought through chain of links that clearly (or convolutedly but still well constructed) ties everything together, from resolution to impact.
I've ran some of the most absurd or complex arguments and occasionally won on them, so I'm not going to vote you down just because something is "stupid." If you can prove it, they have to disprove in response.
Impact Calc good.
The following paradigm was written a couple years ago but still rings true, however I want to preface that I've been out of the loop since 2019, so if there are any new catch-words or jargon I may not be completely on top of that, just so you know!
Former Debater, 4 years, am familiar with both lay and circuit styles of PuFo and LD, and I prefer a style that lies somewhere in the middle. If you construct a superior argument than your opponent and effectively communicate that to me, you're going to win the debate.
I'll be flowing the debate but don't expect me to weigh the debate on an issue if you don't touch on that issue during your final speech. Use the first three speeches to win the debate, use the last speech to tell me WHY you won the debate.
email: email@example.com, pronouns: she/her
hello! i debated in pf at dougherty valley for 3 years (doughtery valley kp and dougherty valley rp) and am now a sophomore at ucla. i'm a flow judge that will buy basically anything, but above all please make sure you are inclusive and kind.
- first: make sure you are reading content warnings with opt outs for sensitive topics (if you are unsure if a topic requires a content warning, better safe than sorry). if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory in any way i will drop you regardless of the content of the round.
- tech>truth, i love unique arguments that bring new perspectives to topics, i will not call for any evidence regardless of how sus i think it is if you do not prompt me to (i think that's intervention) HOWEVER, if i do call for the evidence and it is terribly misrepresented, i reserve the right to drop you
- second rebuttal should frontline, at least all of the offense, if you don’t i consider it dropped
- no "offensive overviews" in second rebuttal please, pf speech times were not built for this, if you are reading turns they must be implicated when you read them, i will not buy new implications into second summary and final
- i love love love weighing and think it's the best part of a debate round! please do it as early as second rebuttal. PLEASE please collapse on ONE argument in second rebuttal
- speaks are started at 28.5, i think speaks are arbitrary and allow biases to creep into judging so i will only go up based on strategic decisions made in the round or if you make me laugh , not speaking style
- you can talk as fast as you want but if i say clear 2 times and still can't understand you i'll stop flowing
- i prioritize WARRANTS over an evidence throwing party any day. good analysis > unwarranted stats
- i really really don't like when people get angry and mean during debate rounds. there is no reason to be mean over a round you won't remember in a few weeks.i will tank your speaks heavily for this :(
- summary and final should mirror each other and extend your case and impact. i will not vote off of it if the full argument and impact are not in both speeches.
- i have experience with theory arguments but if i feel even slightly that you are reading the argument to win ballots, not because there is abuse, i will not vote on it. i have slightly less experience with Ks but i can understand and judge most if you explain the warrants and framing.
above all, have fun! let me know if there's anything i can do to make the round more comfortable for you :)
I mainly judge public forum, and occasionally policy or congress.
The following is for Public Forum. Here’s what I expect:
1. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.
2. I expect all debaters to know the rules and be respectful to one another.
3. Debaters should keep track of their prep time and speech times but I may monitor them and time myself.
4. Be clear and communicate effectively (No spreading please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic.
5. Anything dropped in the round can not be responded to later in the debate.
6. Don’t read new cards in the Final Focus.
7. Do lots of weighing in the Summary and Final Focus; you should make it clear to me who won the round, I shouldn’t have to do the weighing myself.
1. Come prepared to round with a flash drive in case the WiFi is down and you can't email your speech docs.
2. Say which argument you are responding to before you read a card, and group arguments.
3. Don't read just evidence and expect me to interpret why they were said; make it clear what each card means in the context of the debate with analysis.
4. Do what you would do in a normal policy round- don't read floating pics and unreasonable theory shells against your opponents just because they or I don't know the rules as much as you.
5. I will be reading your speech docs but it would be wise for you to read at a speed at which I can clearly understand what you're saying.
6. Divide the neg block between your partner reasonably- for example you shouldn't be going both case and off case in each speech of the block.
7. Properly flow the round and be respectful to your partner and opponents by at least acting like your listening to their speeches. This will enable you to debate line-by-line rather than just using pre-made blocks that don't necessarily address the warrant of your opponent's arguments.
I place a lot emphasis on eye contact and facial expression. Use your hand motions to express your self! Please talk to your audience, not to the computer screen or to your notes. Please don’t hold a computer in your hands- Instead, keep your hands free so that you can use them to express yourself. Please don’t keep looking at your computer screen and read straight off the screen with a monotone voice. You should know your facts well enough that you can make eye contact and only look once in a while at your notes. Please be courteous and kind to your opponent, and show good manners. Be honest in your facts and your sources. Present a well organized and convincing argument. Most of all, enjoy the debate !!!! I look forward to judging! Good work!!!
TLDR; tech > truth, weigh a ton and explicitly please ty :)
I just graduated from Berkeley in 2021, graduated HS in 2017, and primarily competed in Circuit LD in high school! I'm generally comfortable with theory, K's, phil, whatever you want to run. I have been out of the activity for a while now, so will probably struggle a bit with spreading as fast as you can, but I'll call "clear" and "slow" as needed. Other than that, make sure you cover voters in the last speech, and ideally, write my ballot for me!
I'm also definitely not well versed on the topic, so don't assume I know things and tag them with brief phrases - I probably don't know what you're talking about.
Feel free to ask more questions about my paradigm before the round begins if you'd like! Mostly open to any argument style as long as it's not obviously problematic.
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.
Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).
I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses) and am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF.
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, and most recent NPDI 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. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.
I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.
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?
When I operate inside a world of fiat, 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. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.
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 debater 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.
I am a lay judge. If you want me to understand your points, please speak very slowly and elaborate.
I work in the Technology Sector in the Bay Area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and though I am quite novice at judging, I have watched a lot of rounds and have a good understanding of the format and logistics.
As a heads-up, I plan to take notes during the debate, but it is better if you treat me as a "lay" judge.
I have a good amount of general knowledge on the topics provided for these events, but may not know the specifics of your topic.
a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying, so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments more clearly.
b) Be polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Also, please note that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.
c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)
I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will not carry personal biases into the round.
I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me.
If your arguments are too complicated to be understood by the average person, then I will probably be less likely to vote for you.
Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.
I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.
If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know.
I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and recently graduated from Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org—put me on the email chain! If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.
TLDR; please weigh (a lot), one good argument > four blippy arguments, be nice to your opponent!
Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will inform how I perceive rounds. I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.
TLDR; I have a high threshold for warrants and extensions. I'll vote on policy style extinction scenarios if done well, but they're often executed poorly—be sure you can tell a clear story with warrants in later speeches.
- Send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
- The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing—i.e., don't just say that nuclear war is worse than poverty—you should also have a number of arguments comparing your/your opponent's internal links. Extend warrants into final focus.
- People in PF have started to read LD/policy type arguments with long link chains. Often, these arguments don't have proper uniqueness/link/impact. If you can't tell a clear story establishing a brink for impacts that would require a brink, it will be hard to get me to vote on these arguments against something with a clearer narrative. I also tend to find these arguments 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.
- I have a lot of trouble with signposting in PF. Be extra clear about where you are on the flow at all times. I tend to miss card names, so don't use those to signpost. If you're spreading, slow down more.
- Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
- I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
- I'm relatively technical, but I am less inclined to vote for you're not 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.
Evidence exchange takes much too long. If the round takes over an 1 hr 10 min due to evidence exchange, speaks are capped at a 27.5. If one team sends their evidence before every speech, this only applies to the other team. If one team seems to excessively ask for evidence, this rule will only affect the speaks of the other team.
- I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not and I'll probably miss things—especially if you don't send speech docs/make 1-2 line arguments. Use spreading as an opportunity to make more in-depth arguments, rather than spewing blips
- I will not intervene unless I believe you are engaging in a practice that excludes your opponent—for example, reading theory against novices/a team that clearly doesn't know what theory is, particularly if the arguments are frivolous. Use your judgment & debate with the best intentions.
- I will vote on kritiks that are executed correctly, but please make an effort to ensure your opponent understands your positions and err towards over-explanation. Kritiks should be disclosed
- If both teams seem to want to have a theory/k/etc. debate, then I will evaluate this argument as if it is an LD round. If you miss necessary argument components, that's on you—e.g., I won't pretend you read a theory voter if you did not
- Good, true arguments > highly technical bad arguments
- If you read disclosure theory and don't disclose your disclosure theory shell, you should lose, though your opponent must point this out.
- I have a low threshold for ev ethics violations. If you think your opponent did something bad, they probably did. Feel free to stop the round, or make a brief argument explaining the violation, and I'll vote on it if I think the violation is clear. You can read a full theory shell if you want to, but it's not necessary
- Things that are bad: clipping, miscutting, misattributing evidence, broken links, changing the meaning of the cards with brackets, lying, not reading things that change the meaning of the evidence, etc.
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 not 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
I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.
- PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
- if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
- tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
- remember when J.O.T was a thing? I'm from that era
IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!
Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do
(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette
if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time
POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it - ps I keep up with everything.
Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.
don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho
don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check
best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round
clash can GO a long way in this event
For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.
gestures are neato, but don't act like Trump
witty banter is a plus
if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person
tech or truth depends all on you competitors
I better see clash
if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!
When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions
I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links
I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech
I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!
Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision
FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)
Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns
Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it
I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross
When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis
^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T
I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall
Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful
Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"
take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc
Tech > Truth (most of the time)
links can make or break you
value/criterion - cool
stock issues - cool
K - cool
LARP - (my loudest YEAH BOI)
Trix/Phil/Theory - the quickest way to torture me
never assume I know the literature you're referencing
I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything
look at LD above
PLZ send a doc
I expect to see clash
no speed, this needs to be conversational
don't paraphrase evidence/sources
STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine
its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round
not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1
^ don't take on too many - it kills time
don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated
the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed
as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration
Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues
I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.
May all competitors have a great 2022-2023 season!!
I'm a religious studies teacher at St. Ignatius College Prep in San Francisco, CA. Thank you for taking the time to look at my paradigm.
When I judge Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for a number of things, especially:
-Value and Criterion. I prize a competitor's ability to connect their arguments back to a sound value and criterion. I seek logical consistency. An opponent would do well to highlight inconsistencies in the construction and application of the value(s) and criterion. Framework is key to any good debate.
-Civility. I look to see if you are treating your opponent with civility and respect. I most certainly welcome lively and passionate debate as long as it stays clear from rudeness, haranguing, or mean-spiritedness. You are debating a real human person and they should be treated with dignity and respect.
-Attentive listening. Demonstrate to me that you have listened to your opponent's arguments and are willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue with them. Avoiding their arguments indicates to me that you may not have listened attentively to your opponent. Respond to your opponent and demonstrate how your argument is better.
-Measured speech (no spreading). This often comes across as a disingenuous tactic that inhibits your opponents from being able to actually address the merits of your case. I should not have to have a copy of your case in front of me to help me decipher what you are trying to say. Your public presentation skills are important to me as your judge.
When I judge Public Forum Debates debates, I look for the civility, attentive listening, and measured speech mentioned above as well as:
-Solid constructions. Set the foundation for the rest of your debate with strong contentions that have a clear connection to the rest of your debate. Framework is important for me as a judge.
-Appeals to ethics or values. As a religious studies teacher, I greatly appreciate seeing a common philosophical throughline in argumentation. Similar to the above point, values, frameworks, and ethics set a solid foundation for the rest of the debate.
-No frivolous asks for cards. If you do not plan on directly referencing something in your opponents' cards or raising a legitimate concern with me as the judge, please do not waste time asking for them. This often appears to be a sly way of taking off-time prep.
Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.
NSDA PF Topic Committee Member/Writer: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below. We on the NSDA PF Topic Committee will be finalizing our topics for the season over the next five months with tentative topics released mid-June.
Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, 13 years of coaching, instructor at 14 debate camps, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, Capitol 2016-2018, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.
Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Law & Religion - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment - Religion and Philosophy at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, sociology of religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & SCOTUS history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher
2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues present.
Right-to-work law debate comments for UNLV/Stanford/California Round Robin/Berkeley
For the Cal Round Robin: I am not going to disclose to respect Lexy and the tournament's spirit. Also lowkey how many tournies have experts judge finals? I would prefer topic specific debates/topic specific k's. We should be testing who deserves to debate in front of the experts in my opinion.
I've judged about 20 rounds now on the topic. If y'all just go for an econ link or econ impact debate please be careful. These debates can be total soupy number messes. Wages go up/no they go down. Econ goes up/now they go down. Inequality goes up/no it goes down. Pensions go up/no they go down. Start thinking about evidence comparison because both warrants can sound true. Or prereqs. Or short term or long term analysis. I've already judged several rounds on this topic where I have two pieces of evidence that say the opposite economic conclusions and no one tells me why their evidence or warranting is better.
For example, on Neg you run profit and patent decreases from unions decrease innovation by 20%. Aff runs increased wages increase motivation and thus productivity and new ideas increasing innovation by 24%. This is introducing clash but you don't implicate either side or resolve the clash. Why is one warrant better than another? Is one piece of evidence net innovation? Are there different types of innovations? In different sectors? Is one piece of evidence a meta study or more recent? If more recent why does that matter? Does your study have better methodology? You need to resolve these questions otherwise I make the choice on how to resolve the clash which is not what you want. These choices increase judge intervention. Even if I am an AP Macro Econ teacher as well don't make me do the work to decide.
Lastly chill on the global impacts. I know you want those nice terminal impacts but the resolution is not US right to work laws do more harm than good which lets you link in outside the US. The resolution is In the US, right to work laws do more harm than good. Grammar forecloses your high mag/scope weighing outside the US. I like the wishful thinking but just debate domestic impacts for once I believe in you and you should believe in yourself. You're going to do great without global recession and global war. :)
PF Paradigm 2022-23 Season:
I consider myself tech>truth but I have been approaching a closer equilibrium between the two lately due to the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.
- What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internals links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
- Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
- Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
- Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contention you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
- I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century I have been converted that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I still believe theory is used as an easy way to avoid substantive debates but you do you. I will always prefer a round sans disclosure theory but can no longer for intellectual consistency stop you from running it. Still highly suspicious of paraphrasing theory as your "full-text" cards are super power clipped and disclosure solves back but you do you. TL;DR: I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. I am more skeptical of paraphrasing theory than disclosure theory. Lastly, if you look back at the last 32 rounds or so I've judged with theory as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced theory in the round 7 of 32 rounds. Meaning I vote for theory 22% of the time when it's the voter. Take that as you will. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can.
- What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
- Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
- DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
- I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
- Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
- If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
- My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
- My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or evidence" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
- Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
- I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses or raise your phone. Don't interrupt.
Ramblings on Theory
Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.
- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.
Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.
I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.
All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.
Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.
I have debated for three years and have adjudicated in multiple tournaments before.
- I prioritize thought process and depth of analysis in my adjudication. Not only must I see that your speech is well thought out and has a logical flow, but also deep mechanization has taken place and you have a clear grasp of your argument.
- I do not tolerate any arguments that offend minorities, are rude or abusive. In case a speaker does this, the threshold at which I will cast a vote for your opponent will fall.
- I appreciate creativity
1. Engagement. I heavily prioritize teams that want to engage with the clashes brought up in the debate. It is more difficult to score generally if both teams do not engage in a substantive analysis on the clashes in the debate.
2. Consistency. Not only between summary and final focus but also with a story throughout the round.
3. Structure. Signposting and tagline arguments are appreciated.
- Technicality over Truth.
- Speak as fast as you want. However, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll text you to go slower once and then it’s on you.
- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.
- I don't care if you sit or stand or wear formal clothes etc.
- Give trigger warnings.
- Absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.
- Do whatever you want to do.
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offensive overviews in second rebuttal should be discouraged 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. 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.
- Do - “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
- Dont - "extend our link"
- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended.
- 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.
- 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.
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
- 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
Please produce an email chain and add me to it: email@example.com.
- laid back but fashion forward
- simple farm twink
- aura of tragedy
- Former PF coach for Rowland Hall (UT)
- Former director at Park City (UT)
- Current assistant head coach at Park City (UT)
- Current PF coach for Nueva (CA)
After judging many debates, I've become numb to my fleeting ambitions to enforce my normative preferences for the activity. At one time, I had a very long paradigm with very serious directives. I no longer care! Do as you please and I will try my best to meet both teams where they are at. I'm happy with debates fast/slow, K or theory/traditional, quoted/paraphrased, and appreciate most styles of PF.
Strategic Praxis in Front of Me:
- Less is more. You really need to be going for three or four key arguments in summary, and two or three in final focus. Claims have diminishing returns when their proliferation constrains your ability to warrant/implicate any of them.
- Probability weighing is mid. If an argument isn't probable, you should simply answer the link. Probability is derived from the link debate, not your new defense in second summary or innate disbelief in something.
- Lemme hear some warrants.
- Weighing should be evidence-based (even if you're not reading a card) and meet the same rigor as any other argument.
- I politely request that someone -- anyone -- simply answer their opponents' weighing.
- About 50% of my ballots so far this year have been cast for teams on a theory shell; that saddens me, but I will persevere. I'm fairly agnostic on most questions, am okay with teams just reading/answering theory with/without jargon, and will vote tech>truth. One exception: I admit that I am a truther about y'all hopping onto an email chain and sending things real quick.
please say something funny.
I am a parent judge. This is my 1st year of judging Public Forum; I prefer clear arguments and well structured cases. I enjoy clear explanation from debaters of their cases.
If you have any questions, ask me before the round.
Debate is a lot of fun, so enjoy yourselves and learn something new. Good Luck.
Hello Debaters, My name is Nirav Shah and I will be your judge today.
I am a PF judge and have a reasonable familiarity with the rules. I flow all speeches with great detail.
General PF Preferences:
- 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 the 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 on the most important voters in the round
- 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 along with substance
- Be respectful in cross as I pay 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 the comparison
- Provide an off-time roadmap in every back half speech onwards from the second rebuttal
- Have Fun!
- Feel free to email me any questions or concerns. (also add me to the EV email chain if you are making one)
My pronouns are she/they.
The most important thing is to debate how you want to debate, have fun, and hopefully learn. This paradigm represents my preferences about debate; except when I explicitly say, I will do my best to adapt to the specific round in question.
If you have any questions before the round, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or find me on facebook. If the round, or this space, is inaccessible for you for any reason at any point, please let me know and I will do whatever possible to help.
Debate is a game structured by wins and losses, but it’s an educational game with important implications on the subject formation of participants.
To win my ballot: do good weighing, signpost, call out missing internal links and unwarranted claims, and don’t be violent. I will try to find the easiest path to the ballot; tell me what that is.
My view of paradigms has been changed by Sierra Maciorowski (what a coinkydink): this paradigm is long because I have a lot of thoughts about debate, and because people who know me know those thoughts; anything I take out would advantage people who know me. I want to emphasize that I think it is my job to adapt to you: as long as I understand your arguments, and as long as they aren't violent, I will always prioritize the debating done in the round over anything in this paradigm.
I debated at Nueva in parli and PF and (briefly) Rice in NPDA; I currently attend Reed College. I spent two years as a parli coach for Crystal Springs and MVLA. I've gone for everything from the states CP to intrinsic perms to queer pess. I appreciate flexibility in my judges more than anything else, so that's what I'll try to do. Therefore, the most important things in this paradigm are higher-order questions about how I like rounds to happen, rather than which arguments I prefer.
A Note on Tech
I was a technical, fast, gamesy debater. I prefer to judge debates which fall under those lines. Do not think that this gives you a free pass to exclude non-technical teams. I am willing to intervene if I feel that a team has been skewed out of the round by tech. Here are some examples of situations in which I will intervene:
- You are repeatedly cleared and don’t make an effort to slow down. (I know, from experience, that slowing down is hard. Anxiety often pushed me to go faster and get to the next argument. I will err on the side of not intervening via the ballot here, but instead intervene on my interpretation of certain arguments/the other team’s burden of rejoinder.)
- You are faster than conversational speed and do not take POIs.
- You are reading overly technical arguments/are reliant on jargon and do not take POIs.
On the flipside, if you fear that you might be skewed out of the round, please call it out before round and especially in round if you feel comfortable; this is not necessary, but it will make it much easier for me to justify intervention. And if you ever want help with tech stuff, let me know!!
Tech vs. Truth
I will intervene on speech times, the fact that I give at most one win, and against arguments which I subjectively judge to be rhetorically violent*. Break any of these, but especially the third, and you lose with a max of 25s. Any other argument** is tech over truth as much as my biases allow.
There is almost never no risk of any argument unless an answer is cold conceded. Debaters should be much more reliant on offensive claims and warrant-level comparison than extensions of defense.
*I do not trust myself, given my positionality as a white person, to make this judgment, but I am unable to find a better solution. I therefore believe white people should be free strikes for people of color, such that people are not forced to operate in a space where some veil of objectivity in evaluating what is and is not violent is ceded to whiteness. If you are a person of color and want me to conflict you, let me know and I will do so and defend that decision to the tournament.
**There is a minimum threshold of warranting required for a claim to become an argument. Emphasizing this is important: I will not vote on claims which I do not feel have sufficient warranting to be complete arguments, even if conceded. I suspect my threshold here is (significantly) lower than most judges, but it does exist. “Conditionality is a voter – they lose” is not an argument. “Conditionality is a voter – they’ll kick out of MG offense and collapse to whatever I undercover – they lose because dropping the argument is the definition of conditionality” is. I also need arguments to be extended, explicitly, and including a warrant and an implication, in every speech. Shadow extensions don't have no risk, but they have a very small risk.
Give content warnings when applicable – err on the side of caution here. Fast debate is great, as long as it isn't used to exclude; see above. I don't want to shake your hand. Anything else: I don't care. Stand up, sit down, lie down, wear formal clothing, wear no shoes, tag team, have open cx, etc. You do you.
I will try to be non-expressive. I may fail. My expressions tend to have little to do with how I'm evaluating the arguments, and more to do with random stuff about my mood. The one exception is that if I'm not flowing anything, it's because I either don't know where on the flow you are, or I think you're repeating an argument you already made. I will try to raise my hands and make it obvious that I'm not flowing. If this mode of communication is not accessible to you, please feel free to let me know and we can come up with an alternative.
Trans debaters who submit their pronouns on tab have taken a huge risk to do so. For every instance (that I notice) in which you misgender someone who has done this, even if it’s accidental, I will deduct a full speaker point. I will also take time to write down that you did so – this may cause me to miss an argument.
I empirically average a 28.9. I will give a 30 if:
- You read an interesting K that I’m unfamiliar with.
- The LOC order is just case, and has 8 minutes of good arguments.
I will disclose and give an RFD. If you don't agree, I encourage you to argue (although I obviously can’t change my decision) – these conversations force me to be a better judge, and I found them cathartic as a competitor – obviously, this doesn’t mean you should be disrespectful, and you should always ask other judges if they’re ok with this. I'll continue these discussions as long as necessary, even post-tournament over facebook, unless I feel they're going in circles.
Evidence is important but not the be-all-end-all: good cards beat good analytics but good analytics beat bad cards. Please call out bad cards; I will not read evidence unless asked to do so or have no other way to resolve the debate.
Weighing means comparatively explaining why your offense outweighs, including your link chain and solvency mechanism. I strongly dislike “their impact is big so it’s low probability;” this is unwarranted and likely untrue. I prefer leveraging defense as a reason their impact is low probability. I like debates where weighing starts as early as possible. You get high speaks for strategic meta-weighing – meaning comparison of weighing mechanisms, eg whether magnitude or probability is more important. I will default to epistemic modesty, meaning the weight of each piece of offense is the chance they are true times the chance they outweigh.
I like to know what an argument is responding to, both in terms of top-level organization (what page are you on?) and on the line-by-line (where on the page are you?). I am very skeptical of long overviews which are not signposted as responding to specific arguments.
I enjoy specific and narrow plans with clever internal link stories much more than generic whole res affs, but I see why the latter is strategic. I love good case negs. Impact turns are extremely strategic, especially with CPs that solve the other advantage; this is one of my favorite neg strategies. In my opinion, the more time the LOC spends on case, the better the debate.
I think affs are too reliant on impact defense and unwilling to engage in people’s terrible internal link arguments. I generally think that the link debate is more important than the uniqueness debate but can be persuaded otherwise.
I am undecided on all of the relevant theoretical questions here. I love nuanced, deep solvency deficit debates and therefore dislike vague CPs that shift in the back half. I also enjoy impact turned net benefits. I think advantage CPs and PICs are super underutilized, especially when you write them during the aff to take advantage of a bad PMC arg. I will judge kick by default unless told otherwise.
I don’t have a preference for sequencing Ks vs. theory. I’m down for all of the techy K tricks, as well as ethical conditionality and performative contradictions, but also obviously open to arguments to the contrary. I like link turns and smart perms better than impact turns, but will obviously listen to either.
I may or may not be familiar with your lit; feel free to ask. I consider myself most familiar with non-psychoanalytic queer theories, marxism (especially marxist attention to colonialism and imperialism), and epistemological turns in the critical study of security, borders, and the law. None of that is to say that you are not required to articulate warrants for those arguments in a round.
One final note: I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action.
All the stuff from the K section applies.
I tend to think that the neg is better off relying on procedural fairness and limits questions – especially skews evaluation claims as terminal defense to the aff – than on defenses of policymaking. I like neg strategies which are contextualized to the aff, no matter if it's your own K, framework, or some kind of countermethodology. I think KvK debates should be more reliant on root cause claims (and corresponding link turns) and less on coalition-style perm arguments.
Competing interpretations means that I evaluate theory through an offense-defense paradigm; it does not require a counterinterpretation. A corollary is that I literally do not understand how a difference between potential and articulated abuse would function. I am, of course, willing to listen to arguments which dispute either of those claims, but they’re an uphill battle.
I will not vote for reasonability absent an explicit brightline. I prefer standards-level strength of link weighing (who has a better internal link to fairness or education) over generic fairness vs education debates, although the latter tends to be more strategic. Absent weighing, I don’t have a default preference between fairness and education. I default to dropping the argument, not the debater, on all theory questions except status theory (conditionality).
I am very down for frivolous theory. However, I am more sympathetic to RVIs(and similar tricky checks on theory: metatheory, OCIs, etc) than most judges. I won’t hack for them, but I think it’s certainly a debate. I think MOs should be much more willing to rely on these tricks, combined with reasonability arguments, to answer MGs which read multiple shells.
Sure. It’s not my favorite, but I see its utility and I’m down to evaluate it. I suspect it’s under-utilized outside of LD, and I’m very interested in its interactions with theory and the K.
Tricks are very fun when well done, but do not make me judge a bad tricks debate without framing as to why your argument affirms/negates. I default to presuming negative even if the block goes for an advocacy, but good tricks debaters will make arguments in both directions. All the stuff I said at the top about accessibility applies 1000x here.
I think IVIs are pretty cool. I need some framing beyond "this is bad" as to why it warrants a ballot, but in general I'm much more sympathetic to them than most judges are.
-------- Parli --------
Policy >>> Value > Fact. I will vote for plans on fact/value reses and tend to prefer these debates.
Pass them to the other team or repeat them twice slowly; preferably both. I expect you to have a copy for me after the round, if I need it.
I’m down to do flex if both teams agree and time permits. If not, I enjoy debates in which everyone takes POIs. I protect but POOs are always a helpful reminder, especially for critically important arguments; excessive use of POOs will tank your speaks.
I think the neg should be able to split the block. I’ll default per community norms to not allowing it, but I have a low bar for arguments that you can.
-------- LD --------
To be completely honest, I'm not certain that I'm qualified to judge LD. My engagement with tech debate is almost entirely from parli (tech parli, but parli nonetheless), so while I understand how these arguments function and should be competent at flowing/evaluating fast debates, these events obviously have very different norms in a lot of areas. I'll do my best to evaluate whatever you want to read, but you're better off leaning away from traditional phil and from embedded clash (especially long 2NR K overviews). I'm also used to much more explicit signposting than my limited experience with LD suggests y'all do.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Translation of speech names if you're confused about my paradigm: PMC = 1AC, LOC = 1NC, MG = 1AR, MO + LOR (parli has a block) = 2NR, PMR = 2AR.
-------- PF --------
PLEASE WEIGH. PLEASE SIGNPOST. I AM BEGGING YOU.
Theoretically justify any changes to this and I'm cool.
Anything in final focuses should be in summaries, except that if second rebuttal doesn't cover their own case first summary doesn't have to either, including extending turns. To be clear, yes, this means first final focus can extend a turn from first rebuttal that wasn’t in summary, as long as it wasn’t answered in second rebuttal.
New offense in rebuttal (either, but especially second) is abusive unless it link or internal link turns their case (without external impacts) or relies on a link argument made in their case (as do impact turns). I will grant a lot of leniency to the other team in answering these arguments.
PF CX is fake. I don't flow it.
We were one of the first teams to disclose on the PF wiki the week after it came out and read disclosure theory consistently for the last two years of our career whenever we got the opportunity. I am very, very sympathetic to the argument. Additionally, if you let me know that you disclose at some point before my decision, you get an extra speaker point each.
Did PF for 4 years, won nat quales, top 4 at nats.
how to get my ballot:
- DEBATE THE TOPIC
- weigh when you can
- Run theory at your own discretion, if I suspect that you don't understand what you're saying, I will 25 spks you
- if arg not in summary it should not be in final focus
- don't be a menace, but clashing during cross is good
- 2nd rebuttal should have frontlines
- don't lose
I am a lay parent judge.
Speak slowly and have coherent arguments, no spreading.
If I can not flow it, I will not vote on it.
Do not be disrespectful, competitors will be dropped for disrespecting their opponent or the judge.
My preference is that the speakers should have a moderate pace in their speeches so that the judge could fully understand them and specifically when they are speaking about their contentions.
Be polite and respectful through the debate.
I request that both the parties could time each other while speaking and warn/alert if they are exceeding the given time limit
Did PF for 4 years, ask specifics in-round. I haven't judged nor debated for the last four years, so feel free to update me on changes in practices / how stuff has changed since moving online.
1. Absent other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
2. Quality of arguments > quantity of arguments (esp in the latter half of the round). I really value strategic decision-making. Basically, make choices for what argument to go for in the summary and weigh heavily.
3. I'm open to alternative types of argumentation if that's what you are interested in. Just make sure you can explain it well without relying too much on buzzwords.
4. Please don't misrepresent your evidence. It's your responsibility to ensure it says what you say it does.
Bio: Loyola High School ('21) 2 years of LD, 2 years of PF
I'll disclose and explain how I voted at the end of the round (unless the tournament rules say otherwise). I'm not the greatest flower of speed so do not try to spread in front of me.
Terminalize your impacts! If you do not extend your impacts, I will be hard pressed to vote for you. That being said, I am less inclined to vote for a high magnitude, low probability impact than I am to vote for a lower magnitude, higher probability impact unless you tell me why I should prefer lower probability impacts.
Collapse! Do not try to go for every argument you’ve read in your final focus. Find one or two arguments that you believe you are winning on and focus all of your time on those points.
If you want to read a K, I’m not your judge. I really enjoy a good case debate so tell me why your “world” is preferable to the other side. Evidence indicts (this piece of evidence has been refuted since its publication) are a sign of good research and will definitely make me want to give you higher speaks.
Final point: do not call for cards after the first speech. I always found it annoying as a debater and find it to be a massive prep skew for the second speaking team, so ask for cards during/after cx.
1. Ask Rahi Kotadia.
2. If you aren't sure refer to rule number 1.
Jokes aside I can handle anything pfers got. (I will tank speaks and reserve the right to drop you if you do something icky though)
I know most pfers don't read long paradigms so imma keep it sweet and short.
I did pf for Dougherty Valley and was decent at it for 4 years. TOC nats the whole shebang
I will only vote off args in ff, I will not evaluate args not extended in summary. Is a blip an argument? refer to rule number 2.
I picked up college Parli so I can evaluate theory args (Fw, T, random shells) and most common Ks (cap, set col, mil) . (if you do read a K please read it correctly). I do not have experience w stuff like Baudrillard and Nietzche. If you think your K is weird refer to rule number 2.
CI>R unless told otherwise, condo good unless told otherwise, gimme a ROB.
Unlike Rahi I will not intervene and I vote purely off the flow.
Its been a year since I last did parli, so If you will be spreading I reserve the right to yell clear if you are unclear.
Also please give me a proper off time road map/tell me what papers to put on top of each other.
PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE YOU REACH ROUND.
READING CARDS IS ON PREP TIME. IF YOU TAKE TOO LONG TO SEND EV I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME.
Add me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org. (I don't read ev unless someone explicitly tells me to and extends it into FF)
im a debate boomer now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
yay it's my annual paradigm update. i hope im not a flay now :(
well yes but actually no
lay before 8 AM and after 9 PM
About me: he/him, pf 4 years (2016-2020), got 2nd at silver toc once so that's cool
-pls pls pls weigh and do comparative analysis
-2nd rebuttal should frontline turns/DAs and not have Offensive OVs
-defense is sticky for first summary
-idc about cross
-if you paraphrase I will expect you to have cut cards
never ran Theory/Ks, but I'm down to listen to them and try to evaluate the arguments to the best of my ability.
Speaker Point Stuff:
-good round strat (making my life easier)
-i was once able to understand 300 wpm but prob capped at 250 now sad
-cool pen spinning
Email - email@example.com.
Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.
Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.
Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.
Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.
I am a flow judge and can handle relatively fast talking speeds.
Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: firstname.lastname@example.org
My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.
General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.
Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like.
Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.
- keep track of your own times pls
- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves
- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.
- Frontline if you're second rebuttal
- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.
- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)
- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.
- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)
- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)
warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)
weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative
in summary and final focus
pls thank u
I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:
- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc
- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.
- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.
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'.
I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.
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.
I am a mom of 3 and one of them is in public forum. I like proper understandable speaking. I do ask that you speak a little slower than you are used to so that I can understand. If you bring up complicated topics make sure you explain them to me and I also take some notes. I weigh mainly based off who wins the debate and I award based off skill. I also judge off your confidence. I don't time speeches.
Hi! I'm Ishir, a freshman in college who did debate all four years in high school.
Here's my experience briefly: I did LD in freshman and sophomore years, and went to VBI before my sophomore year. I switched to parli for junior and senior years. I also did congress and various speech events throughout my four years. I'll probably continue to do parli in college.
tl;dr: tech>truth, do what you want and I'll work with it. Perfectly happy to vote on any arg that doesn't specifically exclude or minimize any group. Don't do anything that would make your opponent feel small/not welcome.
Good with ks, theory, das/cps, tricks (but these are REALLY easy to respond to, don't count on winning if there's been argumentation).
I may not be familiar with your k lit, make sure you explain. If I'm being honest, these are the types of arguments that I'm least familiar with. The extent of what I ran was cap and neolib, but I did debate against other stuff, and that doesn't mean you shouldn't read it if you are a good k debater or are passionate about you are running.
A parent judge with a few years of experience judging various tournaments and events. I care about presentation and the real-world impacts of your arguments.
I would like to be on the email chain, my email is email@example.com
---> Parent Judge
--> Best to avoid spreading, looking for clarity.
--> Looking for well-rounded arguments and consistency in arguments.
I have been associated with the speech & debate program since 2016. I have judged a few competitions - Congress and Public Forum. Here are my preferences:
1. I appreciate debaters maintaining the decorum, at all times
2. Make sure to follow the rules, at all times
3. Treat your opponent(s) with respect and dignity, just like how you would like to be treated
4. Understand and practice the difference b/w speaking affirmatively vs speaking loudly
5. To me, good content is one where there is strong evidence to support your arguments
6. I appreciate meaningful, relevant statistics/data points that support the evidence
7. I appreciate a good summary towards the end highlighting key impacts
8. Speak at an acceptable pace. Being clear and concise is important to me that speaking fast
Wish you best!
Please be civil, polite, and reasonable. Be clear and I would prefer no progressive arguments. Good luck in your debate!
PF- please make clear and concise arguments. Sign post well with your arguments and no speed. I value communication over tech as the point of public forum is to have as accessible of a debate as possible.
I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.
Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.
I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.
It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).
Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.
Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.
I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.
I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.
Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!
Feel free to ask any specific questions you may have before and/or after the round :)
I debated PF in high school and was a Policy debater at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. I have been judging and coaching debate for a while, and currently coach at St. Paul Academy.
Public Forum Paradigm:
My paradigm isn't anything ground breaking (I mainly like to see debaters have fun and try their best), but here are a few guidelines:
- I love it when teams have a thesis and consistent story that they link back to and articulate throughout the round: what do we get out of a vote for the Aff? For the Neg?
- Speed: I don't care for speed in PF - it typically results in unclear speaking and blippy arguments, which are both bad.
- Links are very important. If you try to gain access to an impact, but lack strong links, it is very hard to vote for you. If you and your opponent have arguments with direct clash, comparing the links/warrants is the best way to come out ahead.
- Both teams will have impacts. If you want me to vote for you, weigh your arguments!!
- Smart analytics can beat cards.
- Jargon is not a substitute for making a complete argument.
- "Off-time road maps" are unnecessary in pf. I should be able to tell what you are talking about during your speech.
- CX: I like cx and think its underutilized in pf! I appreciate when debaters ask good questions and set up the arguments they are going to make, and especially like it when good points made in cx are applied/referenced in speeches.
- Framework: Make sure you address it if it comes up, and make sure you explain it if you are running it. Often times in PF, the proposed framework is actually more of a weighing mechanism and works fine for both teams, so it's okay to agree to it. Other times, framework is used as a cheap way to gain an unwarranted advantage, which should be called out.
- Extension: Complete extension requires warranted explanation of an argument, not just author names.
- Final Focus: Your final focus should basically write my ballot for me - tell me what I am voting on and why. If it doesn't show up in the summary, I am not going to weigh it in the final focus.
- Calling for evidence: First, consider whether whatever you are hoping to gain from calling for a card can be resolved with a good crossx question (i.e. do you really need to call the card?). If you do call a card, know exactly what you are asking for and ask for it right after the speech or at the top of CX so that the partner not participating in CX can pull the ev (i.e. don't waste time/use card requests as a way to steal prep). Lastly - I find it weird when people call for cards and then don't bring it up in their speeches - what was the point? TLDR: Be efficient, ethical, and smart about calling for cards.
Please make complete, intelligent arguments. Please be respectful. Please remember to have fun!!!
Add me to the chain! firstname.lastname@example.org
Clarity is important. I tend to do better at flowing slower teams, but only because most super-fast teams are v unclear. I don't want to have to look at the docs to understand what's going on. I won't say "clear" - if I'm not flowing, its a pretty good indicator that I can't understand you.
Ev quality and highlighting are important (I will check specific ev if I think it is important to the round or if you tell me to, but ev comparison should be done by debaters in round - I want to avoid judge intervention).
Impact calc is important. I do not think you have to have an extinction impact to win the round, but answer them if you are going for something else.
I'm open to pretty much any type argument, but I don't like when arguments are presented in such a way that only a subject matter expert/someone deep in the lit can understand it.
Smart analytics can beat cards.
Please make complete, intelligent arguments. Please be respectful. Please remember to have fun!!!
UC Berkeley 2021 (go bears)
College - email@example.com, debatedocs
High School - ktwimsatt at gmail
- Tech over truth. Only exception is death good arguments/spark. Do not read them; I will not vote on them.
- I'm less involved in research on this topic, please err on the side of over-explanation.
- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.
- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.
- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.
- I'm not super convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.
- Default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.
Hello, I am a parent judge.
Did pf for 4 years in hs. I will call for cards if you rely on them too much, and if you misconstrue any evidence I will vote you down.
I prefer clarity over speed.
I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 6 years of experience in debate.
What I'm looking for in debate rounds:
I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.
If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.
I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.
In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.
Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.
*** Note: Instead of an email chain, I prefer you create a public Google doc (that anyone can access) to share your evidence this avoids the delays of email. Please post the doc link in the chat before the round; Be prepared to post evidence requested in a very timely manner and be selective of what you ask for. If you're reading evidence, you are expected to produce the card as soon as you're asked. Recently, rounds have been taking too long, and it seems like some teams are turning evidence sharing into extra prep time!
I'm a parent judge. Been judging for the last 6 years. My kids did/do Public Forum. I was a policy debater in high school, and judged a few tournaments in college. Keep in mind that was several decades ago.
So far, my judging experience has been mostly Public Forum, some Parli, less Policy, and even less LD.
1) Have fun. Enjoy every round. Make friends between rounds. I met my best friends from high school on the team.
2) Assume that I'm new to the topic because I AM new to the topic. Take time to convince me of your side of the resolution. If you use topic specific acronyms, make sure to define them first before using them. I will come to the round with a clean slate and judge based on what I flow
3) You can speak faster than conversational, but you NEED to be clear and articulate. Don't go faster than your ability to speak clearly and persuasively. Make eye contact with me to make sure that you can assess whether I'm keeping up with you and understanding your arguments. If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote on it
4) Whenever you can, establish frameworks to help me weigh the round
5) Help me by giving me a short roadmap before your speech. It's not required, but it can help me (and I think, you) know what you will be doing. It also helps if you are effective in signposting during your speech.
6) Be cordial and polite to each other during cross-ex and throughout the round. Being rude, offensive, or arrogant is no fun and doesn't earn you speaker points. Being polite, smart, inquisitive, and strategic does. I don't believe rounds are won/lost in cross-ex alone, but I do think that cross-ex is great place to setup your arguments through strategic questioning.
7) Help me weigh the arguments in your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote a certain way. The side that makes it easiest for the judge to evaluate why they're winning the round is often times the clearest winner.
8) I don't really care much for arguments revolving around debate theory as I'm not familiar with it, so try to avoid it if you can. I much prefer the clash over either side of the resolution.
9) Read #1 again. :-)
I am a lay judge with five years of combined Parli and PF judging experience.
- Be polite, especially in cross. Don't shout at each other, please.
- Speak clearly. Don't spread.
- Take the time to explain complex arguments.
I am a novice judge.
English is not my first language. My own job involve lot of coding not lot of speech.
I will be fair and not influence by my own opinion.
I am a lay parent judge. I prefer that debaters don’t speak too fast so that I could follow your arguments.
I will judge based upon:
1) solid logic and reasoning.
2) strong advocacy of your position.
3) utilization of evidence.
4) clear communication.